One of the first important items to pop up is next Monday’s scheduled committee hearing for House Bill 1149, aka Parent Trigger II. This lighter version of last year’s Parent Trigger bill by Rep. Don Beezley looks like it at least will have a chance to go further than the House Education Committee, unlike last year’s proposal.

In a nutshell, HB 1149 gives parents of students in low-performing schools greater voice to speed up the process of closing, turning around or converting the school. Currently, the State Board has to intervene in struggling schools designated “priority improvement” or “turnaround” after five years. The new proposal would empower parents during the third year of the process. If 50 percent of them sign a petition, the State Board would only be obligated to give them a hearing before taking one of three options:

1. Do nothing (i.e., continue the existing improvement plan);
2. Wait and schedule a reevaluation of the school’s plan for the following (fourth) year; or
3. Direct the Commissioner of Education to convene a review panel to make recommendations.

Okay, so it’s hardly a huge, radical change, and not nearly as strong as the original version. But it does give parents in low-performing schools a little more power and potentially a lot more voice.

According to the Colorado Department of Education’s School Performance Framework, 221 of the state’s 1,806 schools and alternative education centers are operating under a priority improvement or turnaround plan. Of that number, 105 (representing a variety of schools from Denver and Pueblo, as well as rural and suburban areas) will be going into the third year and should be immediately affected by the legislation.

While Colorado’s HB 1149 doesn’t appear to be as potent as the “parent trigger” proposals coming forward this year in places like Arizona, Florida, Indiana and Louisiana, it is a small step in the right direction.

In the meantime, inquiring minds want to know whether anyone will see little Eddie’s shadow peeking around the State Capitol in the coming days. Wait and see, there should be enough time. Fourteen more weeks of legislative session, you say? As tempting as it sounds, guess I can’t roll over and go back to sleep yet….

And now today it’s the first-ever Digital Learning Day, centered at a site where you can participate in a live chat and watch a series of webcasts, including an online national townhall meeting at 1 PM Eastern (11 AM Mountain). Colorado is well represented, as the townhall features National Online Teacher of the Year Kristen Kipp from Jeffco Virtual Academy. Also, at 1:30 PM ET / 11:30 AM MT, our local Englewood High School will be one of numerous school sites around the country interacting online via Skype.

I tell you what. There is so much more going on in the digital learning arena here in Colorado, and my Education Policy Center friends are right in the middle of it. If you haven’t seen their helpful guide for parents that came out within the past couple months, you really need to check out Choosing a Colorado Online School for Your Child.

What’s more, last week they also co-sponsored an event with the Donnell-Kay Foundation that brought together nearly 50 of the state’s online education leaders to help craft a digital learning policy roadmap! The keynote speaker and facilitator for that event, Susan Patrick from iNACOL, also is speaking out on this important day:

“By embracing the transformative power and promise of online learning, kids everywhere can have access to the best teachers, engaging content and mastery-based learning opportunities. With new learning models, we can overcome achievement gaps, level the playing field and ensure America’s kids rise to meet the demands of a world that is increasingly globally-competitive,” said Susan Patrick, president and CEO of iNACOL.

Her group highlights four key areas of need policy change to expand effective digital learning opportunities not only in Colorado but also throughout the nation:

• Break down barriers of student access
• Move away from seat time to “competency-based” learning
• Provide equitable, student-centered funding
• Embrace new models of accountability and assessment

Hear, hear, time for Colorado to step up! You’ll be seeing more from me on this front in the near future. In the meantime, Happy Digital Learning Day!!

Colorado has developed good policy for dismissing unqualified teachers, but not for increasing the pool of well-prepared teachers entering the workforce, according to a report out today.

The National Council on Teacher Quality, a national nonprofit, released the report today grading every state’s teacher policy. Colorado averaged a C letter grade, up from a D+ in 2009, but was ranked as No. 12 among the states making the most progress.

Yes, this is the same respected NCTQ I’ve talked about before regarding their study of teacher preparation programs. In fact, my Education Policy Center friends last year recorded an iVoices podcast with NCTQ’s Sandi Jacobs about the then-latest version of their State Teacher Policy Yearbook.

As reading the Post story might suggest, there are two distinct ways to take Colorado’s C grade in the area of teacher policy. One approach is to emphasize the fact it wasn’t graded on a curve. NCTQ correctly set a fairly high bar, so our Centennial State looks pretty good compared to most other states. Not only are we 12th in the amount of progress made in the past two years — Senate Bill 191, anyone? — but we are also 9th out of 51 (including D.C.) in the overall quality of the state’s teacher policies.

And with some good reason. While we aren’t in the elite B-range category (inhabited only by Florida, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Tennessee) and we didn’t make the most progress during the last two years (that would be Indiana), Colorado did earn the highest-possible “Best Practice” rating in the areas closing licensure loopholes and performing layoffs based on effectiveness rather than the old “LIFO” (last in, first out) rule. (Ahem, SB 191!) Our state also met the goal in four other areas:

• Alternate Route Usage and Providers;
• Evaluation of Effectiveness (SB 191… again);
• Tenure (based on effectiveness… you guessed it, SB 191); and
• (Remediation for teachers with) Unsatisfactory Evaluation (Can I get a 191, please?)

On the other hand, being 9th or 12th still isn’t good enough when you look at some of the significant weaknesses NCTQ has identified. As the Post story highlighted, Colorado hit the rock bottom rating for most of the teacher preparation goals — including elementary math, middle school, secondary, and student teaching. We also hit the lowest “does not meet” mark in the area of performance pay. While I appreciate NCTQ’s intent, and Colorado certainly hasn’t arrived, there are a number of local alternative compensation plans at work in the state’s school districts and charter schools.

On the issue of pay scales, NCTQ urges Colorado and many other states to take action by discouraging districts from tying compensation to earned degrees. Hmmm… Great idea! I’ve been on the anti-master’s bumps bandwagon with NCTQ for some time now. But there’s a good reason for that, too. The research overwhelmingly shows it has no effect on student learning. In a new piece for City Journal, Marcus Winters quantifies the value of all the major credentials educators can earn:

Research also shows that the credentials prized under the current system tell us next to nothing about how well a teacher performs in the classroom—and they explain only about 3 percent of the variation in teacher quality. Obtaining a master’s degree, it turns out, is simply unrelated to a teacher’s effectiveness….

I could go on, but hopefully you got the point. While some in Colorado might sit back and relax with a C because most states have the same grade or lower, I say it’s time to press forward and focus on continuing to fix the deficits that are holding us back from becoming NCTQ’s first state to earn an A!

Here in Colorado the legislature kicks off School Choice Week with the introduction of House Bill 1149, a lighter version of last year’s Parent Trigger bill by Rep. Don Beezley. This latest version allows parents from schools that have spent two consecutive years under one of the state’s two lowest accountability ratings (aka “priority improvement” or “turnaround”) to petition to change the school’s management structure and/or convert it to a charter.

Because Parent Trigger II offers a slower process than in last year’s proposed legislation, it may win over more support. In the meantime, while I let the special School Choice Week moment sink in, here are some other related happenings and odds & ends that may interest you:

• A couple of stalwart California education reformers, Larry Sand and Alan Bonsteel, explain in the Los Angeles Daily News why school choice is more important now than ever
• Writing for the Fordham Institute’s new “Choice Words” blog, Adam Emerson is trying to get readers to graduate to a new conversation about parental choice, and wants your (and my) thoughtful participation
• It’s not brand new, but I couldn’t think of a better way to kick off the week than to point your attention to a great video by the Foundation for Excellence in Education about the not-so-supermarket that offers a narrow selection of milk like some states offer a narrow selection of educational options

You know what, on second thought, I’ve thought of a better way. You can watch the 1-minute video right here, right now:

Have I got your school choice juices flowing yet? Yes, it’s Monday, but it’s no excuse not to wake up and get informed….

The Innosight Institute’s Michael Horn lays out the question of how to get from the national group Digital Learning Now!’s reform roadmap to a well-tailored solution in a given state, in this brand-new Education Next article:

With the road map in place, one might assume that moving into the future will be a straightforward exercise: the pieces are all there and model legislation is forthcoming, so state policymakers just have to enact the 10 Elements.

Of course, things are never so simple, and many questions remain.

Some questions reflect legitimate disagreement over Digital Learning Now!’s recommendations, even among those who agree with its broad vision….

The devil indeed is in the details. But it’s just that sort of reality that keeps my Education Policy Center friends busy working hard… or so they say. Maybe they just keep busy to stay out of trouble. Because, after all, the idle brain is the devil’s playground. Sorry, all this talk of the devil is creeping me out — almost as much as talking about the bogeyman or Congress seriously considering the SOPA / PIPA bills (not sopapillas!).

Anyway, speaking of details, you can get some more insight into Michael Horn’s thinking on the need to make significant policy changes by listening to one of our iVoices podcasts we recorded with him a few months ago. Arm yourselves with knowledge as you support the good cause of parental choice and educational excellence through digital learning in Colorado!

Ed News Colorado’s Todd Engdahl as usual does a great job previewing the session and legislative initiatives likely to emerge. If you want the in-depth take, you simply have to go check out the story. According to the story, action is likely to be seen on the following fronts, among others:

• School finance reform
• Standardized testing implementation
• Charter authorizing standards
• Educator effectiveness rules ratification
• Online education oversight and regulation
• School construction funding
• School discipline policies
• A new version of the “parent trigger”
• “Restrictions on automatic salary increases for teachers who earn master’s degrees” (yee haw!)
• Private tuition tax credits

Many, not all, of these present some welcome changes. And of course, the devil remains in the details. In the meantime, word on the street is that another bill is coming to require school district-union bargaining transparency.

It looks like 2012 could bring some more Colorado legislative activity on K-12 education than a slow 2011 did. How much legislation passes, not to mention how much will be worth passing, remains to be seen. But now that my Education Policy Center friends are so much closer to the State Capitol, you can bet that little Eddie will have more of a front seat to observe what’s going on….

One such major issue is how Colorado K-12 public schools recruit, hire, pay, evaluate and retain their teachers. The implementation of the state’s educator effectiveness law occupied a lot of time and attention last year, and an important — but unusual — deadline comes up next month. The rules adopted by the State Board of Education either must be ratified or repealed by the state legislature by February 15.

The hope also remains that this debate propels more local momentum toward important educator compensation reforms like those highlighted in my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow’s 2011 issue paper on the subject. Time to stay tuned in….

Meanwhile, the national debate on teacher quality presses forward. And that brings an important contribution compiling all the key research on the question in the new book Teachers Matter by Manhattan Institute senior fellow (and now one of Colorado’s own) Marcus Winters. This professionally-made 5-minute video, including a few key interview excerpts with the author, frames the issue well (H/T Jay Greene):

Nice. So this is 2012, huh? Well, I’m sure you’ll be hearing more from me and my Education Policy Center friends about educator effectiveness in Colorado as the pages on the calendar keep turning. And that’s just one of the important issues on which we’ll keep focusing. It’s good to be back.

Along with our fantastic School Choice for Kids website, this is definitely something you’ll want to know about for 2012, if you are at all interested in looking for a new public school for your child here in the great Centennial State. Many school district open enrollment periods really get rolling in January. This kind of guide can be very valuable if you think the cyberschool option might be right for your family.

Shortly thereafter comes the first-ever national Digital Learning Day on February 1. Colorado is one of at least 27 states to have signed on as a partner to this effort. Participating in Digital Learning Day is something I definitely look forward to!

Meanwhile, as we here in Colorado are fighting back against the overwrought attacks on full-time online schools, yesterday comes this excellent commentary in the Detroit News by Ingrid Jacques:

…Eleven years ago, Michigan became one of the first states to open a statewide virtual school. This year, the Michigan Virtual School facilitated around 18,000 course enrollments to middle and high school students, giving more children access to advanced and specialized courses.

The state additionally offers several multidistrict and numerous single-district virtual programs, according to a report on virtual learning by Michael Van Beek, education policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

And starting in 2010, Michigan opened two full-time virtual charter schools — a result of legislation passed in late 2009 to bolster the state’s chances of winning money from the federal Education Department’s Race to the Top program. [emphasis added]

Yes, this is the same Michael Van Beek who I have cited in writing about transparent union negotiations, taxpayer-funded union release time (where have we heard about that recently?), public school open enrollment and teacher performance pay. Sounds like he covers a lot of the same ground as my Education Policy Center friends, huh?

Speaking of which (in addition to the new publication and the February 1 celebration) 2012 also will kick off with my friends pushing forward in the fight to break down Colorado policy barriers that limit effective online and blended learning opportunities. One key example that Van Beek mentions in the same column for Michigan would also apply to our state — namely, that “the Legislature remove seat-time requirements and instead reward schools based on student mastery of a subject.”

Sure, maybe we can take a break now so we can unwrap the presents from Santa and spend a little extra time playing in the snow. But we need to be prepared to come back next year to take part in this important work!

One of the oft-cited advantages of charters is the greater level of accountability that allows them to be closed down much more easily than other public schools when they aren’t working as they should. Until now, though, I’m not aware of any comprehensive data telling just how many charters have closed over the course of nearly 20 years since the first states adopted a law.

The Center for Education Reform finds that 15 percent of all American charter schools that ever existed — 1,036 out of about 6,700 — have closed for a variety of reasons. CER’s original research breaks down the frequency of these different reasons as follows:

• Financial (41.7%)
• Mismanagement (24.0%)
• Academic (18.6%)
• District Obstacles (6.3%)
• Facilities (4.6%)
• Other / Unknown (4.8%)

The authors of the report make a salient point:

A closure rate of 15 percent is nothing to boast about. Yet it is still lower than the small business failure rate and dramatically higher than the percentage of conventional or traditional public schools ever closed.

State-by-state closure rates are not included in CER’s breakdown. But every individual closure is listed, 16 in Colorado over the course of time. It seems like that would make Colorado’s charter closure rate lower than the national average of 15 percent, but I defer to Denise at Colorado Charters for her insights on the new CER research.

Yesterday brought the release of a three-year study on the eight earliest Denver innovation schools — including Bruce Randolph, Cole, Manual and Montclair. One key, hopeful finding? Successful innovation schools exhibit “positive cultures,” which contributes to steady, effective principal leadership.

Still, the two news stories on the study make similar points. The Denver Post highlights that innovation status is simply a tool, not a magic bullet. Meanwhile, Ed News Colorado’s headline trumpets the major (and not terribly surprising) finding that the “innovation law doesn’t spark major change.” One point in the study touched on in the latter story did cause me to roll my eyes a bit:

In particular, according to the report, principals, teachers and parents cited as positives greater control over how and when they hire, the ability to opt out of direct teacher placements by the district and the use of one-year contracts to ensure new hires are a good fit with the school’s mission.

Still, the findings on innovation schools’ staff were acknowledged as a concern by some, including Carolyn Crowder, executive director of the Denver teachers’ union. The report noted teachers at the eight schools were less experienced – by about three years – and less likely to have master’s degrees than teachers in five comparison schools.

For anyone primarily concerned about what innovation status means for improved student learning, the only response is: So what??? Every shred of research shows no connection between teacher master degrees and student learning. Nearly all research shows that teacher effectiveness plateaus after three to five years of acquired experience.

And guess what? The study’s detailed findings reveal that average teacher experience in innovation schools is about 6 years, as opposed to 9 years in non-innovation schools. Of all the findings to be concerned about in the report, this one should hardly cause more than a yawn.

I still have some hope for innovation schools — some will succeed. Though in the end charters are a more promising option. But the new report certainly leaves some food for thought about the ambiguities that remain unresolved, as well as some questions about which schools will fulfill their potential effectiveness.