According to a report cited in the Los Angeles Times, 12 of the top-performing 15 schools in California that serve low-income students are charter schools (H/T Joanne Jacobs). Nearly all of them!

Number 1 on the list is the American Indian Public Charter run by the amazing Ben Chavis:

“These poor kids are doing well because we practice math and language arts,” [Chavis] said. “That’s it. It’s simple.”

He insisted that it is easier to teach poor students than more affluent ones because they are more motivated to succeed. “It’s the opposite of what everybody says,” he said. “It’s easier to do it with the poor kids and the minority kids because they have nothing, so they should be the highest.”

Asked why most educational researchers say the opposite, he said: “They’re liberal and lazy . . . and they see these kids as victims.”

Ben Chavis and his students are among the leading stars of the award-winning Flunked documentary. As you can imagine from his remarkable can-do attitude, Chavis has succeeded where the naysaying bureaucrats in the traditional education system have not.

Then you hear the ridiculous news that the school board in Memphis, Tennessee, has gone out of its way to reject a charter school proposal based on an existing, successful school (H/T Colorado Charters). It kind of makes me want to scream and pull my hair out.

Anyway, I’m proud to say Colorado has its own star charter schools that serve large amounts of poor students. I’m thinking of:

• Cesar Chavez Academy
• Denver School of Science and Technology
• West Denver Prep

Why can’t more schools imitate their success? I don’t know, but it sure is exciting to hear California is seeing some similar results.

What isn’t so exciting is being told that I can’t go to this big Founders’ Night party tonight where all my friends in the Education Policy Center are going. Bummer. They tell me I’d think it’s boring and that it goes on past my bedtime, but I’m not quite buying it.

No Comments »

Over at the catchy Flypaper blog, education guru Mike Petrilli talks about his local Maryland teachers union’s get-out-the-vote strategy for Election Day:

Montgomery County schools are not only closed today (purportedly to protect students from intruders, as most schools are used as polling places) but were also closed yesterday. Which means that MCEA’s 12,000 members could spend a long weekend campaigning for Democratic candidates (most likely, across the Potomac in Virginia), and then volunteer at polling places today, all without taking a single hour off of work. That’s pretty smart politically, but what’s the justification for students to miss two days of school in the middle of the fall semester?

A good question. I am pleased to report that there seems to be no evidence of this sort of thing going on along Colorado’s Front Range. A quick search of the eight largest school districts in the Denver metro area - Jefferson County, Denver, Douglas County, Cherry Creek, Aurora, Adams 12, Boulder Valley, and Littleton - show they are all in regular session today on Election Day (as well as yesterday). That’s good news, though I’m already wondering if I should be careful about giving out unsolicited ideas here.

While the local teachers unions apparently don’t have a full-scale election holiday, many of them have other smaller perks for union leaders and activists to get out of regular duty. Many collective bargaining agreements grant a set of leave days for union-sponsored activities, with the taxpayers sometimes funding both the teachers on leave and the substitutes hired to take their place. Some collective bargaining agreements also offer an extended half-year or full-year off-duty for the local union president, with the school district picking up part of the cost. The union president leaves the classroom for a full year of more to lobby and represent her organization, an activity subsidized by the public!

You can find more detail here in this publication (PDF) written by our own Ben DeGrow. Even if the actual cost isn’t enormous, you may come to agree that taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing these activities.

No Comments »

One of Colorado’s biggest online mysteries has been solved. The many readers of the Schools for Tomorrow education blog are sleeping better tonight. Okay, maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration.

What am I talking about? On Friday, 9News interviewed the Education Policy Center’s Ben DeGrow about his perspective on the state record $454 million school bond proposal Denver voters face this year. In the process, his hardly-surprising online identity was revealed:

An online blogger named “Uncle Charley” has written several entries for Education News Colorado trying to get readers to think about the need before they act.

One blog is entitled, “More Tough Questions on DPS Bond,” which talks in part about the individual items that would be funded by this bond issue and series of property tax hikes have agreed to in Denver over the past two decades.

“Uncle Charley” is actually the pseudonym for Ben DeGrow, with the Independence Institute, a non-partisan conservative political think tank. DeGrow says spending $13 million dollars on athletic fields and other monies for failing and half-filled schools is not wise. [link added]

Ben said that (hardly unexpected) the quotes in the piece don’t do his argument justice. But that’s okay. He was quick to point out that many of the projects in the bond are doubtless worthy ones, but that some of the individual projects (e.g, the price tags for renovating North HS and for artificial turf on football fields, as well as the lack of impact analysis on the Learning Landscapes) raised red flags. He didn’t see anyone else asking the questions, so “Uncle Charley” took it upon himself.

Ben also said the recent history of Denver voters’ favorability to tax increases and the lack of an organized opposition bode well for the record $454 million proposal’s passage. In the scheme of things, that would hardly be a disaster. The two main points are: Are taxpayers getting a good deal out of the bond proposals put forth by DPS and other area school districts? AND What can be done to make future bond proposals smarter and more efficient?

Oh well, at least now everyone knows who the self-styled stodgy - but always thought-provoking - conservative “Uncle Charley” is. Perhaps there’s no better time than Halloween for the metaphorical unmasking. To those of you out there who had put money on it being someone from the Bill Ritter administration, the teachers union, or liberal academia, I’m sorry for your financial loss. Whether the arguments are made by “Uncle Charley” or Ben DeGrow, they ought to be scrutinized on their own merit.

No Comments »

I don’t mind that the president of the Denver teachers union uses her office as a platform to bash someone running for vice president of the United States:

Think about it… [Sarah] Palin’s wardrobe allowance would educate a classroom of 23 students for a year in Colorado. We need to “CHANGE” this!

If she wants to complain about the Republican National Committee spending $150,000 on wardrobe for Palin and her family, that’s certainly the Denver union president’s prerogative. But she at least ought to get her math right. Since I’m still working on simple addition, I trusted one of my friends in the Education Policy Center to run the calculation. So you may have to try this for yourself to verify it.

According to the Colorado Department of Education, the state average for public school operational expenditures in 2006-07 (the most recent data available) was $8,754 per student. Run the calculation, and you’ll see that $150,000 divided by $8,754 is a little more than 17 (17.135, to be precise). So let’s try the joke again:

Think about it… [Sarah] Palin’s wardrobe allowance would educate a classroom of 23 17 students for a year in Colorado. We need to “CHANGE” this!

Of course, this is a silly comparison anyway, since it’s hardly a standard practice for political campaigns representing any party to donate their funds to public school operations. But if a campaign ever decides to do so, a remedial math program might be the first place to start.

No Comments »

Like other public schools, charter schools can fail, too. The advantage is it’s generally easier to shut charters down or to reconstitute them in a way that better ensures success. The Denver Post has a story today about giving just such a second chance:

An embattled Denver charter school has a new name and a new agreement with Denver Public Schools after a vote by the school board Thursday.

The former Challenges, Choices and Images charter school for kindergartners through 12th-graders is now Amandla Academy — named after the Zulu word for strength.

The school voluntarily terminated its charter contract with the district, effectively severing the district and the current school leaders from any financial liabilities incurred by CCI.

“This was all legal stuff to get the new school to go forward without being encumbered,” said Russell Caldwell, senior vice president at the brokerage firm D.A. Davidson. “The good news is DPS financially and legally acted very prudently to allow the new charter to have conditions in which it will grow and flourish.”

The agreement turns the K-12 school of 600 students into a contract school through June 30, and Amandla officials plan to submit an application to become a charter school before the contract runs out.

What exactly are contract schools? Funny you should ask. Because Marya DeGrow, one of my friends in the Education Policy Center, wrote an Issue Paper three years ago titled Contract Schools Bring Innovative Choices to Denver Public Schools (PDF). A “contract school” is defined in the School Choice for Kids glossary as:

A tuition-free independent school that is not operated by the school district. The school’s operator signs a contract with the local Board of Education to provide an educational program. Contract schools are not under charter school law.

In any case, I certainly hope the school formerly known as CCI has gotten its act together, after some fairly serious problems reported with the leadership and culture of the school. The school can live out its focus on ancient African principles - such as propriety, order, truth, and purpose. For the sake of the kids who benefit from the unique program offered at CCI/Amandla, a second chance like this ought not be wasted or taken for granted in the least.

No Comments »

I get excited to see the ball move forward even a little bit on the issue of school district transparency. Whether it’s the district’s checkbook or its union bargaining sessions, this kind of information should be easily accessible to parents and other taxpayers through the Internet.

Our friends in Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Foundation, have launched the latest noteworthy effort (H/T SPN Blog):

As part of a year-long campaign to provide greater transparency in school district labor negotiations, the Commonwealth Foundation has unveiled a new website and blog, SchoolBoardTransparency.org. SchoolBoardTransparency.org will offer insight and advice in the labor negotiations process for school boards and citizens. The site will provide regular posts on issues, news, and best practices in school district labor negotiations, and allows users to comment and create posts on a moderated blog.

The project will also include a “how-to” manual for school board members looking to provide greater transparency during union negotiations and a resource for media covering public school labor negotiations. The guides will provide the important questions to ask and explain the key issues typically involved in labor negotiation contracts.

Besides its regular blog-style updates, School Board Transparency also provides more effective school districts with praise and constructive criticism.

Right now, I’m hoping the folks here in the Education Policy Center will look at promoting a similar sort of project for Colorado. Right now, voters in Jefferson County, Denver and several others would benefit from having transparent, easy-to-access information on how their school districts are spending tax money so they could make more informed decisions on mill levy and bond proposals.

No Comments »

What does it take to attract teachers to serve in the more challenging school environments? Part of Denver’s ProComp program rewards teachers who work at hard-to-serve schools with a $2,345 bonus this year.

While the extra money definitely plays a part in providing incentives to some, there are other factors that help attract teachers to challenging environments they might not otherwise choose. As Ed News Colorado reports about a new study:

Augenblick, Palaich and Associates surveyed teachers and principals at 16 relatively high-performing public schools – some charters, some district schools – in six cities coast-to-coast. The study, undertaken in collaboration with district and union leaders from Aurora, Denver and Jefferson County public schools, was funded by Denver’s Rose Community Foundation.

The study participants were overwhelmingly from elementary schools, so people reviewing results should keep that in mind, researchers stressed.

Dale DeCesare, one of the study’s authors, said he was surprised by the emphasis teachers placed on the effective use of technology. Overall, availability of technology ranked as the third most important factor in creating positive working conditions.

As someone surfing the Internet and reading an education blog, you must have some appreciation for the value of technology. The article goes on to explain how teachers value the power of technology in helping them to collaborate effectively and to connect with students in new and interesting ways. The explanation comes with the necessary caution that readers should avoid “jumping to the conclusion that more technology equals better results.” Technology can enhance good teaching, but it cannot substitute for bad teaching.

Other factors that teachers found to be important? More planning time (including group planning time); effective instructional leadership; flexibility from district and union work rules; and strategic interventions for struggling students.

Next what we need is a study to show how much each of these factors contributes to improving student achievement.

No Comments »

I hope that I get smarter as I go through school some day. Likewise, despite its success with advancing school choice and accountability so far, Colorado also needs to Get Smart(er) about education reform. At least that’s the premise behind a new group called Get Smart Schools Colorado.

As the Rocky Mountain News reports:

The idea behind Get Smart Schools is similar to school initiatives in Chicago and New York - one group pooling expertise and funding to help promising new school models get off the ground.

That’s because research shows it’s typically more effective to start good new schools than it is to transform existing schools that are failing.

In Colorado, the focus will be on importing quality school models that have been successful elsewhere and on helping promising new schools find facilities, an obstacle for many.

Believe it or not, this sort of group really is needed. We know the importance of smaller schools, autonomy (big word!), strong leadership, high-quality instruction, research-based curricula, parental involvement (i.e., choice), and focus on student improvement. But with an experienced and qualified staff of its own, a group like Get Smart Schools Colorado can show new schools how to get it done and succeed without being bogged down by the well-meaning but counterproductive bureaucracy.
Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Kim Ursetta, the president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) tells this little story yesterday:

One of my twins (6 yrs. old; first grade) was really sad when he came home from school today. It seems that another boy in his class told him he was “stupid.” I asked why the boy would say something like that, and my son was so upset. He told me that the boy “was just mad ’cause I won’t vote for McCain… I’m only voting for Obama!”

I’m not going to tell you who my mom and dad plan to vote for President. It’s not important for me to do so. But I know I’d be in trouble from them if I called anyone “stupid” - especially just because they might support someone different than my parents do. It simply isn’t nice.

I’ve told you about the Presidential campaign before. On the issue of education, there are reasons to be hopeful about both candidates (as well as reasons to be skeptical).

But I had to scratch my head and wonder why the Denver teachers union president has her kids so excited about Barack Obama, especially after the NEA convention she attended booed Obama for his comments on performance pay and charter schools.

My Education Policy Center friend Ben then suggested it might have something to do with the luxury skybox view of Obama’s Invesco Field speech that she and other union leaders received, compliments of the dues and fees of hard-working teachers union members–and even some non-union members.

I am thankful that my own teacher doesn’t talk to us about her political views. I don’t know if she supports John McCain, Barack Obama, Ralph Nader, or Bob Barr, for that matter. But I wonder if some of her money is going to help support political candidates she doesn’t like.

No Comments »

I deserve to go to school in a safe, well-constructed facility. But my parents and I also deserve a clearer accounting of how the money is to be spent. Colorado school districts are putting a record $2.5 billion in construction bond proposals on this November’s ballot. Do the people going to the polls have the information they need? One of my friends here at the Education Policy Center has good reason to think that isn’t the case:

“My hypothesis is the larger turnout means (districts) are reaching into a voter base that is generally less informed about local issues and more inclined to give money to schools because it sounds like it is the right thing to do,” said Ben DeGrow, education-policy analyst for the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank based in Golden.

Denver Public Schools is asking for $454 million, Douglas County $395 million, and Jefferson County $350 million, not to mention the proposals of 12 other school districts. And not to mention proposed mill-levy increases that add to the total.

DeGrow, however, said he thinks Colorado residents might be growing weary of tax increases.

“Taxpayers keep getting taken for more and more,” DeGrow said. “That adds up and tends to make a difference over time.”

In my opinion, he actually understated the case a bit. Most people want good schools, including well-constructed school facilities, but they also want to see their money spent most effectively. The difference between a Yes vote and a No vote is much more than the difference between someone who cares about kids and schools versus someone who doesn’t. What about:

• Has the school district found other ways to save money?
• Has the district accounted for depreciation?
• Has the district given due consideration to more affordable financing or cost-sharing arrangements?
• Has a careful analysis of the previous bond election been done to show the impact on students learning and well-being?
• Has the district prioritized its needs to match its fundamental mission: preparing students academically for future success?
• Is the district proposing to build a 100-year facility, when it would be wiser to build a 25-year facility, imagining that 21st-century demands on schools might grow to be significantly different?
• Have charter schools and others been treated fairly and equitably?
• Has the district been open and transparent to provide parents and other taxpayers with clear and honest answers to these questions?

These are all things voters should have a basic understanding of before casting a Yes or No vote on their local school district bond. I know I’m only 5, but it makes sense to me.

No Comments »