At the other end of the poverty – and fund-raising – spectrum is Johnson Elementary in southwest Denver, which reported fewer than $3,000 in private gifts in 2010-11.

If a donation of five or six figures came through the door of the school, where 96 percent of students are low-income, said Principal Robert Beam, “You’d be writing a story about a principal who is dancing in the streets all day long.”

The timing of the story is remarkable. Why? Yesterday substantial checks went out to 14 metro area public schools and 2 public charter management organizations (CMOs) serving high-poverty student populations, with awards totaling $500,000. And they didn’t just go out to schools based on need, but to schools with a proven record of serving their students well:

Award winners were selected based on a variety of factors, including academic performance and growth, percentage of students qualifying for the Federal free and reduced lunch benefit, school culture, leadership, and instructional effectiveness.

So states the media release from the benefactor Foundation For Great Schools, a coalition of five private Colorado foundations, including the Daniels Fund (which also helps support my Education Policy Center friends). When they cite “academic performance and growth,” they aren’t kidding. All 16 recipients earn an A or B from the new Colorado School Grades site:

• Montview Math and Science Elementary (Aurora)
• Tollgate Elementary (Aurora)
• South Elementary (Brighton)
• Ricardo Flores Magon Academy (Charter School Institute – Westminster)
• Community Leadership Academy middle school (Charter School Institute – Commerce City)
• Beach Court Elementary (Denver)
• Bryant Webster Dual Language K-8 middle school (Denver)
• Denver School of Science and Technology CMO (Denver)
• Girls Athletic Leadership School (Denver)
• Greenwood ECE-8 middle school (Denver)
• KIPP Sunshine Peak Academy (Denver)
• West Denver Prep CMO (Denver)
• Deane Elementary (Jeffco)
• Stein Elementary (Jeffco)
• East Elementary (Littleton)
• Valley View K-8 elementary school (Mapleton)

I haven’t seen any reports indicating increased street-dancing activity taking place near any of the above schools. Yet while various kinds of celebrations may take place at each of those centers of learning, I will study up on the definition of this great word philanthropy. Remember: You can find more information on Colorado schools and the open enrollment process at the fantastic, parent-friendly School Choice for Kids website.

The National Math and Science Initiative (NMSI) is a four-year-old program (younger than me!) that has demonstrated successful results in increasing the number of students who pass Advanced Placement (AP) exams in math and science, particularly among underprivileged students. The Colorado Legacy Foundation has reported similar positive results here in our state for the seven schools who participated in a less-than-fully-vamped version of the program in 2010-11.

The news? The effective math and science program is expanding dramatically in Colorado:

But it’s still unclear how well the National Math and Science Initiative’s AP program could work in Colorado because some incentives — such as payments to students who get high scores — were dropped when Colorado didn’t get federal Race to the Top funds to fully implement the program in 2010-2011. Educators are waiting to hear whether grant money will be available to expand it in coming years.

The program, which originated in Dallas, aims to expand access to tough AP classes to lower-income students, Hispanics and African Americans, and to help them pass AP tests administered by the College Board. It uses a mix of teacher training, open enrollment in AP classes, and $100 for teachers and students for each passing score.

Sources assure me that $1.5 million has been raised from a number of generous private sources, ensuring a $15 million federal matching grant for the full-fledged program in 30 Colorado high schools representing 14 different districts–including Denver Public Schools, Mesa Valley 51 (Grand Junction), Cherry Creek, Littleton and Eagle County. Given the track records out there, this news is potentially a big thing.

Working very closely with NMSI is the nonprofit organization Laying the Foundation, which focuses on preparing middle and high school teachers to provide rigorous and engaging instruction that promotes student success in the AP program. This video from Ruston High School in Louisiana gives an example of the organization’s effective work. Also noteworthy: LTF’s chief executive officer is the same Dave Saba who once appeared in a former role on an iVoices podcast about alternative teacher licensure.

Small world, isn’t it? Just in case you’re concerned, I am resisting any and all urges to start singing the song that has made Disneyland famous. No need to cause a stir, when the news I’m sharing today should cause a much better kind of stir. Best wishes for success on the Advanced Placement Teacher Incentive Program to the Legacy Foundation, NMSI, LTF, and the Colorado teachers and students they reach.

Am I surprised? No. Let me repeat what I’ve said many times: Full-time online education is by no means the best option for all students, or even most students. But it works very well for many families who have chosen the learning option. Which some might have a hard time understanding if you believe the straw man presented by an opponent in the Post story:

“Kindergarten kids learning in front of a monitor — that’s just wrong,” said Maryelen Calderwood, an elected school committee member in Greenfield, Mass., who unsuccessfully tried to stop K12 from contracting with her community to create New England’s first virtual public school last year. “It’s absolutely astounding how people can accept this so easily.”

Well, if the idea people carry around in their head is of a 5-year-old sitting in front of a computer screen all day, then it would be astounding for people to be so accepting of online education. But simply put, that’s a caricature. For a better picture of what an online student’s day looks like, listen to this 10-minute iVoices podcast interview with three students from the Colorado Virtual Academy. While some lessons (though less for younger students) as well as the assessments and teacher interactions are on the computer, cyberschool also includes real textbooks, science kits, art supplies, and even field trips!

I’m not sure if the person quoted in this story really believes in the caricature or not. The way her quote is worded makes it oh so unclear. She could read later on in the Post story and also get a good idea. But I’m guessing she might disapprove of a 5-year-old blogging. (Note: I don’t spend anywhere near the whole day in front of the computer, though sometimes that’s the case for some of my Education Policy Center friends.)

Instead of rushing to implement harsh responses rooted in oversimplified misunderstandings of what online education is and is not, let’s look at making smart policy changes that bring education into the 21st century. There needs to be room for families to choose a quality full-time online option, as well as room for students to blend their education with customized online course opportunities.

Some knotty (not naughty) questions remain as the innovative online sector experiences some growing pains, but some really have gone overboard in seeking to use blunt instruments to bash virtual learning opportunities — or at least their straw-woven facsimiles. While I may be perpetually young, I wasn’t born yesterday.

But we just can’t flip a digital learning switch, and solve all the ills of public education. One of the biggest obstacles to the important transformation is a dusty old system of school finance that delivers money to district administrative offices and allots it to schools through staffing formulas. Dr. Paul Hill, in his thoughtful new Fordham Institute issue brief titled School Finance in the Digital-Learning Era, notes:

This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to move money from concrete facilities, established programs, and entrenched staff roles to new uses like equipment, software, and remote instructional staff. Yet to encourage development and improvement of technology-based methods, we must find ways for public dollars to do just that—and to follow kids to online providers chosen by their parents, teachers, or themselves.

Will “disruptive innovation” overtake the existing K-12 education system, or will Colorado lawmakers make some serious changes to how it is funded first? As my Education Policy Center friends contemplate how to craft a school finance system for digital learning and the 21st century, they and others couldn’t find a better resource than Dr. Hill’s new piece.

Some of the brightest national lights on the topic are favorably impressed. Education Sector’s Bill Tucker agrees that something like “weighted student funding” is necessary, but not sufficient, to effect the needed change:

…a new system needs to go beyond “whole school” models. In other words, if digital learning “unbundles” school so that students can choose courses and learning experiences from multiple places, as in Florida and other states, then funding needs to be just as nimble.

Customize schooling… where have I heard that before? Meanwhile, widely-respected digital learning entrepreneur Tom Vander Ark has a lot of valuable insights to share about Hill’s paper, including something he and I definitely concur was an important point:

The second breakthrough proposal in this paper suggests scraping the complicated system of local levies and partial state matches for school construction. Instead, “Funds previously earmarked for facilities and maintenance could be included in the backpack.” I’d love to see school districts get out of the real estate development business. If a little tech and facilities funding showed up with enrollment revenue for courses, providers could lease appropriate facilities. This would lead to more school options, more facilities flexibility, and far more productive use of public space. This transition could be accompanied by the sale and lease of many school facilities that could raise billions in funding for operations and program development.

Who out there is willing to join us in questioning such major assumptions embedded in the system? We’re talking about the future here, and the future belongs to kids like me. I understand there are challenges to overhauling an education funding system to help it focus more productively on serving individual students’ needs, and that not everyone will come out a winner. But just using “that’s the way it’s always been” as the reason to resist change isn’t going to hold water, and in a sense is avoiding the inevitable.

Anyway, I’ve only scratched the surface, but trust me: My Education Policy Center friends are paying attention, and taking good notes. Helping Colorado become a leader in this area is an important focus. To make sure K-12 education is primarily about serving students’ needs, we need to do everything we can to make sure that money follows the student to their chosen learning opportunities. It’s working out all the other details that takes time.

a year-long campaign to celebrate bold, creative innovative teachers in classrooms across this nation. These front-line innovators are already embedding digital learning into new instructional practices to ensure that every student leaves the classroom ready for college, career and life success. We ask you to join with us, as with them, as we launch an unprecedented, collaborative effort to expand innovation into every city, town, school and classroom in America!

Former West Virginia Gov. Bob Wise explains a little bit more in this 3-plus minute video:

Digital learning has real power to help transform our state’s and nation’s education system into a more nimble, productive, effective, and student-centered enterprise. But it’s far from just a matter of importing iPads into the classroom. The market for computerized and web-based technology to enhance learning is booming, but progress is hindered by policies designed for the 20th century factory age.

If you want a clear and sobering big-picture assessment of where our education system is today, and why it needs to change dramatically, check out former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s CNN interview with Piers Morgan.

Last month’s release of the Nation’s Digital Learning Report Card provided a road map. Most of its proposals that Colorado hasn’t already adopted can help fulfill the promise of online and blended learning strategies for students and for our state. But remember: as my Education Policy Center friend Pam Benigno and the nationally-renowned Michael Horn both have said, more regulation is exactly the opposite of what we need.

In fact, an effective array of digital learning options can best be created by quite the opposite approach. Via American Thinker’s Gary Jason:

…the unionized teachers and administrators may use web-based instruction to co-opt school choice….

Keep pushing vouchers. Within a voucher system, one can easily allow cyber-schooling for those who want it.

Exactly. The two reform ideas are complementary, not contradictory. In the meantime, my Education Policy Center friends will continue helping to arm students and parents with information about their education options — including full-time online and blended learning — as policy makers hopefully see the need to overhaul policies that are choking effective innovations like digital learning. So get yourself ready for February 1, sign up today (it’s not too early), and help spread the word!

The anxiety level in the room rose quickly after Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs and chair of the House Education Committee, briefed the group on his idea for a bill that would hold back third-graders who are the furthest behind in literacy. [link added]

About five years ago my Education Policy Center friends hosted an event with a couple experts who explained some major reasons behind Colorado’s “reading crisis.” Not all kids will be reading as well at the 3rd grade as I am, unfortunately. Let’s hope the issue of teacher training doesn’t get overlooked in this policy discussion. Not surprisingly, though, the idea to end social promotion already has opposition:

Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, said, “Retaining a student is almost a guarantee they will drop out,” calling retention in grade “a death sentence.” Her comments were echoed by several other members of the task force.

Really? Not so fast. What the facts do show is that non-proficient readers in 3rd grade are eight times more likely to drop out than their proficient peers. And Florida has successfully shown that holding back 3rd grade students who don’t demonstrate basic literacy can be done effectively. A major peer-reviewed study shows the success of Florida’s policy:

Our findings suggest that retained students slightly outperformed socially promoted students in reading in the first year after retention, and these gains increased substantially in the second year.

All in all, I’m glad to see this issue moving forward, and hope yesterday’s discussion leads to some fruitful changes. Florida has shown that ending social promotion and providing scientifically-based early literacy interventions absolutely works. Kids need to learn how to read. Let’s not be afraid to follow another state’s success in this area. Kudos to groups like Colorado Succeeds who have emphasized this issue as a need for change.

Let’s help put the overeager presumption to rest. First, Harrison superintendent Mike Miles points out that the Sierra High School student walkout is not the first of its kind in the district, and that its connection to the performance pay changes is tenuous at best. Second, as Ben DeGrow noted earlier this year in his issue paper Pioneering Teacher Compensation Reform, Miles emphasizes the comprehensive approach to performance pay. Effectively overhauling established, inefficient teacher compensation structures is extremely difficult without also taking on other key changes, like Harrison has done:

• Implementing an evaluation system that emphasizes regular observation and ties to improved student outcomes, like the one highlighted in the new Education Trust report Fair to Everyone (PDF);
• Training principals to be more effective and accountable instructional leaders;
• Creating a district-wide culture of high and rigorous expectations for students, and a culture of professional feedback between teachers and evaluators focused on regular improvement of instructional practices;
• Developing and using internal common assessments of student performance that provide more useful and meaningful measurements of all teachers’ classroom effectiveness;
• Providing focused and coherent professional development opportunities for classroom instructors to improve their craft; and
• Implementing a district data system that provides accurate and timely information to teachers and principals to focus on instructional quality and student learning.

All that to say it’s challenging work that takes times and comes with its share of bumps in the road, but most signs in Harrison at this point are positive. A spring survey of community members found a majority in support of the changes.

Many teachers appear to have embraced the changes as well. Superintendent Miles told Ben DeGrow in a Tuesday phone conversation that the district’s teacher turnover rate increased slightly from about 20 percent to 25 percent, which he attributes to a few factors: 1) More Teach for America faculty, many of whom move on after their 2-year assignments; 2) struggling teachers who decided to move on; and 3) a small number of senior proficient teachers who departed the district in part because they didn’t get an automatic pay promotion.

The next few years will help show us if a less experienced instructional workforce can be more effective in the right systems and conditions provided in Harrison. “We have to be okay with high [teacher] mobility as long as our achievement is going up,” Miles said.

The round of state testing done at the end of the first year of E & R showed amazing results for some Harrison schools, not so much for others. It’s too early to tell what the overall impact of the new system will be — not to mention more changes underway in the latest Harrison 5-year plan.

But Superintendent Miles remains emphatic that E & R isn’t taking place for its own sake, but because he expects it to continue producing results. “Pay-for-performance is a vehicle and not an end in itself,” Miles told DeGrow. “The end is achievement, and always has been.”

There’s a reason why Ohio reformers are looking closely at Harrison as a model to guide teacher policy changes in their own state. And that’s because the bold move is showing early signs of success.

Affluent suburban districts may be outperforming their large urban neighbors, but they fail to achieve near the top of international comparisons…. White Plains, New York, in suburban Westchester County, is only at the 39th percentile in math relative to our global comparison group. Grosse Point, Michigan, outside of Detroit, is at the 56th percentile. Evanston, Illinois, the home of Northwestern University outside of Chicago, is at the 48th percentile in math. The average student in Montgomery County, Maryland, where many of the national government leaders send their children to school, is at the 50th percentile in math relative to students in other developed countries….

It goes on, but you get the flavor. If you’re wondering about your own school district, you can check out the handy new web tool Greene and company created called The Global Report Card. All in all, it’s an interesting tool that may be worth further exploring. The findings reported by Greene and McGee do raise some cause for concern:

In four states, there is not a single traditional district with average student achievement above the 50th percentile in math. In 17 states, there is not a single traditional district with average achievement in the upper third relative to our global comparison group. And apart from charter school districts, in over half of the states, there are no more than three traditional districts in which the average achievement would be in the upper third.

One of my Education Policy Center friends decided to check out the 10 largest school districts in Colorado, to see at which percentile average students rank among their international peers. Here’s what he found:

1. Jefferson County (48%)
2. Denver (unclear, data presented separately for “Denver” and “District 1″)
3. Douglas County (60%)
4. Cherry Creek (52%)
5. Adams 12 [listed as "Adams"] (38%)
6. Aurora [listed as "Aurora County"] (22%)
7. Boulder Valley (58%)
8. Colorado Springs 11 [listed as "Colorado Springs"] (44%)
9. St. Vrain Valley (48%)
10. Poudre (55%)

Looks like Colorado might be one of the 17 states identified as not having “a single traditional district with average achievement in the upper third relative to our global comparison group.” If somebody can find a Colorado district at or above the 67th percentile, please let me know. Looked at this way, the state’s K-12 performance still doesn’t show terrible results, but we can certainly do better.

While we certainly shouldn’t abandon less privileged students in the quest to raise their academic performance, it is important to recognize that we need to raise the bar for middle class, suburban students, too — a point more ably made by Greg Forster on Jay Greene’s blog, of all places.

…The legacy of achievement gap mania isn’t necessarily undesirable. Focusing on the neediest students is admirable, as far as it goes. With limited time, talent, and resources, we can’t do everything–and it’s not unreasonable that some think our priority in every case should be the most in need.

The real problem has been the unwillingness of gap-closers to acknowledge the costs of their agenda or its implications. And yet, the groupthink consensus that the business of education is “closing achievement gaps” has made it tough to talk honestly about the costs–for fear of being branded a racist or thought unconcerned with inequities. It has dreadfully narrowed the potential coalition for reform. It has distorted the way we’ve approached educational choice, accountability, and reform. It has warped and retarded the pace, reach, and power of school improvement efforts. And it has yielded a stifling and ultimately troubling vision of schooling.

Before you follow the natural urge to respond, you really also ought to read Hess’s entire National Affairs essay that got this rolling. No one can ever say he is afraid to stir the pot.

I think the timing of Hess’s commentary is interesting, and probably reflects a prolonged sour economy and some belt-tightening among K-12 budgets. If we really want more productive and effective schools for all students, as I do, the sudden reality of scarce resources can provide a mild shock to re-think grand strategies somewhat. It’s a healthy and important thing to do.

Anyway, mere coincidence or not, the mini-kerfuffle over Hess’s challenging argument times well as a prelude to the release of the new Fordham Institute report Do High Flyers Maintain Their Altitude?. No, Chester Finn’s think tank hasn’t suddenly developed an interest in aviation. Rather, the report identifies some mixed results for early high-performing students as they are promoted into higher grades.

One of Fordham’s lesser-touted findings ties even more directly into the whole debate about the achievement gap, between schools and within schools:

High flyers at low-poverty schools performed on average at the 97th percentile in third grade math, while high flyers at high-poverty schools scored at the 83rd percentile—a difference representing over a year’s worth of growth. By fifth grade, however, they scored at the 97th and 82nd percentiles, respectively. While high achievers in high-poverty schools grew slightly less than those in low-poverty schools, the difference was marginal. The same pattern held for middle school math. For both elementary and middle school reading, the gaps between high-achieving students in high- and low-poverty schools slightly diminished over time, but again, only marginally.

These findings suggest that the relationship between a school’s poverty rate and extent of growth among its high-achieving students is very weak. In fact, both high- and low-poverty schools varied dramatically in the growth of their high achievers; in other words, high- and low-growth schools could be found among high- and low-poverty schools alike. Attending a low-poverty school improves the average high achiever’s prospects for growth by very little; it appears that factors other than poverty control the growth of high achievers within a given school….

Some of you out there may think it’s kind of selfish of a high-flyer kid like me to spend so much time giving attention to this question. But I do think between Hess and Fordham there are some points to be considered here. Please digest your food for thought and get back to me with comments. Should the education reform movement take away anything from this? If so, what?

A careful analysis of test score gains by David Figlio of Northwestern University has found a modest but statistically significant gains for Florida tax credit students. The data in this study are messy, and Dr. Figlio admirably goes about sorting through the various issues in an even-handed fashion.

On the redefinED blog, Jon East digs through many of the key nuanced findings and leaves us with this assessment:

In sum, the report is neither definitive nor an endorsement. But it does add genuine value to our understanding of how these underprivileged children are faring. It tells us that struggling students are choosing the scholarship and that in the most recent year they were marginally outperforming their public school counterparts.

Maybe it’s a good time for Colorado lawmakers to take a closer look at enacting an education tax credit program that provides clear cost savings, improves public school performance through competition, and gives a real chance at modest learning gains for participating students. A kid can dream, can’t he?