The Luminary Learning Network is not the best model to foster
collaboration among schools
Introduction
Having criticized the (mis-)use of “innovation school”
status to bring about dramatic change in low-performing schools (my focus has
been Aurora Public Schools and Pueblo 60),[i]
I am puzzled at the buzz about the new innovation zone in Denver. In David Osborne’s Reinventing America’s Schools (2017), as part of his three chapters
on Denver Public Schools, he devotes two pages to “Why Innovation Schools Have Not
Excelled.” In spite of this, he then introduces
the reader to Denver’s Luminary Learning Network (LLN)—as if it might produce
better results.
A 28-page “CASE STUDY: Disruptive Innovation in an Urban
School District: Denver’s Luminary Learning Network” by Alan Gottlieb (published
January 2018, with a Foreword by
Osborne), offers an update—including some “year one results” (page 21 and 22).[ii] (My assessment of those pages: the two
schools already doing well improved, the two low-performing schools did
not.)
In that Foreword,
Osborne asks five useful questions that speak “to the future of the innovation
zone experiment in Denver.” I add more
questions here; if they sound like they come from the point of view of a
teacher, not a school administrator, I would merely answer: exactly.
I then propose an alternative model for school networks in Denver Public
Schools.
4 LLN schools – headed north,
east, south, west
|
We can bring schools together—not just out of their shared
their frustration with district control—but out of their shared belief about what
a good education is. I see no common thread in the mission of the first
four LLN schools: Creativity Challenge Community, Denver Green Schools, Cole
Arts & Science Academy, and Ashley Elementary. I read of no common professional development
around teaching and learning. Each
school is using its financial freedom to choose what seems best to serve its
own particular needs (see box).
What is the value of a “network” of schools sailing in four
different directions? I see the appeal for school administrators, but not for
teachers. Above all, not for better
teaching and learning. (“CASE STUDY” devotes one paragraph to LLN’s Teacher
Advisory Council, but its purpose sounds as vague and vapid as any typical
district workshop. One council member
says it will “provide structures and supports to educate the whole child, by
creating more action-oriented, teacher-driven professional learning opportunities,
while holding the zone accountable to the community.”[v] Good grief.)
Shared beliefs
I enjoyed such sharing when I taught in a
Core Knowledge school. A number of professional development days were spent
with other teachers—from Core Knowledge schools around the state—teaching my subject (English)
and my grades (7,8). At Core Knowledge
conferences, workshops offered meaningful professional development—what we as
teachers wanted and needed, not what our districts told us to attend—with
peers holding a common vision of a good K-8 curriculum.[vi]
Yes, most of these schools were charters,
and yes, we valued our autonomy. But
the network mattered to teachers because it was about what took place in our
classrooms. This is not the model I see in the Luminary Learning Network.
|
When what you have in common is what you’re against – too much district control
and/or interference—that is not enough. How
does this benefit teachers seeking to carry out the mission of their school, with its distinct
curriculum and instruction? It is in our
classrooms where a school’s educational philosophy plays out. This former teacher sees little value in networking
with buildings committed to different ideas about what makes “a good school.”
In contrast, we see shared
beliefs about curriculum and instruction in Denver’s two largest networks,
each with a dozen schools: Denver Science and Technology Schools and STRIVE Prep
schools. It may be there as well for the
three KIPP schools and three Rocky Mountain Prep schools. It is easy to imagine
similar networks for other educational models and “brand names”—such as Montessori,
Expeditionary Learning, Early College, and Denver Center for International
Studies.
Part I. – The Luminary Learning Network – frustration as
a unifying principle?
We read that
the four schools in the LLN began with a shared exasperation over rules and
regulations from the district that limited their capacity to make key decisions.
They did not come together as schools sharing a common educational model.
Again
from Osborne’s Foreword to “CASE
STUDY,” one word captures the key motive behind the formation of the LLN. (Bold
mine)
The innovation schools have experienced
increased but partial autonomy and accountability, and that half-way status has
led to widespread frustration.
Principals and teachers have been frustrated
when the district refuses to honor the autonomy promised in their innovation
plans, whether to purchase what they need, opt out of required district
meetings, or manage their own professional development. And school board
members have been frustrated that
innovation schools have not, on average, performed better than traditional
public schools, at least through 2015.
Those frustrations
led a group of principals to propose an improvement on the model: an
“innovation zone” ….[vii]
Equally
problematic, the four schools were in remarkably different places re their performance. As they began their effort in the fall 2016
they were given four different School Performance Framework ratings. Results
only widened after year one of this work.
If a network like this is good for schools already doing well, but is unable
to help low-performing schools Meet
Expectations, why bother? “CASE
STUDY” quotes DPS school board member Barbara O’Brien asking about the future
of the innovation zone:
“Do kids learn more, and faster? That’s the
key question. If not, why would we expand it? What is the point of autonomy for
autonomy’s sake?”
It continues:
“O’Brien said in the summer of 2016, that she had been ‘forthright’ with all
parties that she doesn’t see any wisdom in expanding the zone until three years
have passed and the board can evaluate whether the innovation zone has borne
fruit in the form of markedly improved student achievement.”[viii]
Reasonable,
yes? Apparently not. The CASE study reported that as early as September of 2016
DPS was talking with a number of schools interested in expanding the LLN. Although none of those plans went forward for
2017-18, this past winter Chalkbeat
Colorado reported that 13 schools are now interested in “joining the
district’s first ‘innovation zone’ or by banding together for their own zones.”[ix]
Denver’s School
Performance Framework – 2014, 2016, & 2017 - % Earned Points and Ratings*
2014
|
2016
|
2017
|
||||
Creativity Challenge Community
|
-
|
-
|
84.7
|
Distinguished
|
86.3
|
Distinguished
|
Denver Green School
|
55.3
|
Meets Expectations
|
61.7
|
Meets Expectations
|
73.7
|
Meets Expectations
|
Ashley Elementary**
|
47.52
|
Accredited on Watch
|
34.4
|
Accredited on Priority Watch
|
45.5
|
Accredited on Watch
|
Cole Arts & Science
|
47.65
|
Accredited on Watch
|
46.7
|
Accredited on Watch
|
41.1
|
Accredited on Watch
|
*SPF data throughout taken from DPS
reports at http://spf.dpsk12.org/en/2017-spf-ratings/. There was no SPF in 2015.
**Note – Ashley
gained Innovation status in 2013, well before the LLN. Were there signs by 2016 that greater
autonomy was proving helpful? And while
Ashley Elementary rose from Accredited on
Priority Watch in 2016 to Accredited
on Watch in 2017, student achievement status earned 34% points, just above
the Does Not Meet cut off. Cole, at 32% points, earned a Does Not Meet status on achievement.
Gottlieb’s CASE STUDY provided a breakdown of 2016 vs. 2017
results at the four schools.[xi] Good news for the two stronger schools. For the two low-performing schools, results
in 2017 were worse in 6 of 8 categories. Especially disturbing: the much lower growth
scores for Ashley Elementary in 2017.
CMAS
Standards
Meets
or Exceed Expectations
|
Median
Growth Percentile
|
||||
2016
|
2017
|
2016
|
2017
|
||
Ashley Elementary
|
ELA
|
19%
|
18%
|
45
|
36
|
MATH
|
5%
|
12%
|
42
|
32
|
|
Cole Arts & Science
|
ELA
|
20%
|
21%
|
60
|
49
|
MATH
|
12%
|
6%
|
35
|
17
|
|
An
introduction to the LLN by the Gates Family Foundation says that the CASE STUDY
should be read by “State
policymakers interested
in creating or leveraging laws that allow innovation zones to be used as a tool
for increasing school/community-level autonomy, accountability, and student outcomes.”[xii]
(Bold mine.) And if it doesn’t?
Part II. – What could
be: networks around common educational models/beliefs
Over the
past 25 years charter school advocates have been admonished time and again: “school
autonomy is no silver bullet.” Sorry
sorry sorry if we ever said that it was!
Freedom from the constraints
of unnecessary rules and regulations was always a means to an end: to try to
serve students well.
Denver’s
(perhaps generous) 2017 SPF listed 55 schools Accredited on Watch, 16 Accredited
on Priority Watch, and 10 Accredited on Probation. A
total of 81, over one-third of
Denver’s schools, serving over 34,000 students.[xiii]
If we define the essential problem for DPS to be low student achievement for
far too many students, and if low-performing schools granted innovation status
have seldom improved enough to Meet
Expectations, the LLN is a poor match for Denver’s major challenge.
A better
match will be networks designed to assist and support strong teaching.
In the
spirit of school autonomy and Denver’s desire to be a “21stcentury
school district,” we cannot expect the central office to provide professional
development for 200 schools with such a vast range of educational philosophies. Strong professional development is best coming
from schools and experts in the Core Knowledge, Expeditionary Learning,
Montessori, KIPP, or Early College family. And where the number of like-minded schools is
too small within DPS, that network can (and often already does) expand to other
districts (and states) with schools committed to the same principles.
Furthermore,
networks among schools with shared beliefs will be more motivated to help the
“peers” within their network, schools where achievement is low. As you will see, there are plenty of them.
DCIS and Montessori schools – Uneven results
I have a fond memory from over
20 years ago of visiting the highly-regarded Denver Center for International Studies, then located at West High
School. In 2017 DCIS joined the other
three DCIS-themed schools as not Meeting
Expectations at least once in the past two years. I visited the DCIS at Montbello program three
times last year. So many
challenges. Can the more successful DCIS
schools lend a hand?
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
|
Denver’s SPF rating - 2016
|
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
|
Denver’s SPF rating - 2017
|
SPF Color rating - 2017
|
|
DCIS at Ford
|
47.45
|
Accredited
on Watch
|
58.75
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
DCIS at Fairmont*
|
34.3
|
Accredited
on Priority Watch
|
50.89
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
58.74
|
Meets Expectations
|
53.03
|
Accredited on Watch
|
Yellow
|
|
DCIS at Montbello
|
43.07
|
Accredited
on Watch
|
31.24
|
Accredited on Probation
|
Red
|
*DCIS
did not meet expectations for Academic
Gaps, Student Progress, and Family and Student Engagement, perhaps
explaining why it is Accredited on Watch,
in spite of earning more points than DCIS at Fairmont.
Of the six schools offering Montessori programs in DPS in
2015-16, two have since closed, and none of the other four have kept a rating
of Meets Expectations two years in a
row, 2015-16 to 2016-17.
Montessori
Denver’s
SPF - % pts earned - 2016
|
Denver’s
SPF rating - 2016
|
Denver’s
SPF - % pts earned - 2017
|
Denver’s
SPF rating - 2017
|
SPF Color
rating - 2017
|
|
Academia Ana Marie Sandoval
|
47.59
|
Accredited on Watch
|
59.46
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
Dennison Montessori School
|
44.68
|
Accredited on Watch
|
56.30
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
Denver Montessori Junior
High School
|
62
|
Meets
Expectations
|
47.3
|
Accredited on Watch
|
Yellow
|
Monarch Montessori
|
40
|
Accredited on Watch
|
43.75
|
Accredited on Watch
|
Yellow
|
Escuela Tiatelolco*
|
24.66
|
Accredited on Probation
|
CLOSED
AFTER 2016
|
|
|
Gilpin Montessori**
|
19.01
|
Accredited on Probation
|
26.74
|
Accredited on Probation
|
RED
CLOSED
|
*DPS
ended its contract with Escuela Tiatelolco after 2015-16.
**DPS closed this school at the end of
2016-17.
The Montessori approach
is admired and applied across the globe.
Its reputation will not be badly damaged by the disappointing
performance of schools in one Colorado school district. But where an educational model is newer,
perhaps even home-grown (DCIS, Rocky Mountain Prep, STRIVE Prep) poor and
inconsistent performance by schools bearing the same name can have greater
repercussions. Especially, perhaps, in a
district like DPS, where replication of strong models plays a central role. [xiv]
(Which raises a question for Denver parents. To what extent
can they read of schools identified as DCIS or Montessori, or, for that matter,
DSST, KIPP, STRIVE, Expeditionary Learning (EL), or Early College—and say, with
confidence: Any school with that name will
be a good choice for my child.)
This is why I believe schools with the same name or brand
will feel a responsibility to insist on a high quality for each and every one
of “their” schools. I see this in DSST
and STRIVE. Not all of their schools Meet Expectations (see below), and yet they
seem to take responsibility for improvement at “one of their own.” We also see
their expansion put on hold when a couple of their schools struggle.
I sense that the DCIS and Montessori schools do not belong
to such a network. What if they
did? If we as educators take pride in
the model that makes most sense to us—that we as teachers act on every day as
we prepare for class—why would we allow a DCIS or a Montessori (or KIPP or
Early College …) school across town to stumble and fail? What if all Denver schools flying under the
same banner, with common names, looked at their peers and said: We are in this together. How well you succeed, how you are perceived,
affects us too.
What’s in a name?
DCIS and Montessori are just two examples. We see many schools with a shared identity
perform at dramatically different levels.
CONTRASTING RESULTS: After the 2016-17 school year we see:
Three Early College
programs rated Meets Expectations
(green), but two rated Accredited on
Watch (yellow).
Only one of three Expeditionary
Learning schools rated Meets
Expectations.
Four of five KIPP
schools rated Meets Expectations or
better. Note, however, the contrast between its highest rated school, Distinguished (blue), earning 90.5%
points on the SPF, with its lowest rated school, Accredited on Probation (red), earning 32.2% points.
One STRIVE school
rated Distinguished (blue) earning 91.7%
points on the SPF and another 7 rated Meets
Expectations. And yet, two were Accredited
on Watch (yellow), and one was Accredited
on Priority Watch (orange), earning 36.5% points.
Most DSST schools
again earned high ratings in 2017: 4 rated Distinguished
(blue) and another 6 rated Meets
Expectations (green). Still, two
DSST schools were Accredited on Watch
(yellow). The gap in percentage points
earned by the top two DSST schools (nearly 90%) and the bottom two (close to
40%) is huge.
Early College
School
|
Denver’s SPF % pts earned- 2016
|
Denver’s SPF rating
2016
|
Denver’s SPF - % pts
earned- 2017
|
Denver’s SPF rating
2017
|
SPF Color rating
2017
|
CEC Early College
|
73.85
|
Meets Expectations
|
61.86
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
Southwest Early College
|
48.02
|
Accredited on Watch
|
55.82
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
Dr. Martin Luther King Early
College
|
40.0
|
Accredited on Watch
|
51.05
|
Meets Expectations
(BUT Achievement Status - 28.67 Does Not Meet)
|
Green
|
Hi Tech Early College
|
46.33
|
Accredited on Watch
|
49.1
|
Accredited
on Watch
|
Yellow
|
West Early College
|
26.06
|
Accredited on Probation
|
39.64
|
Accredited on
Watch
(Achievement Status – 21.23 Does Not Meet)
|
Yellow
|
Expeditionary Learning
School
|
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned 2016
|
Denver’s SPF -
% pts earned 2016
|
Denver’s SPF rating
2017
|
Denver’s SPF –
% pts earned
2017
|
SPF Color rating
2017
|
Odyssey School of Denver
|
71.90
|
Meets Expectations
|
60.78
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
Centennial School
|
46.03
|
Accredited on Watch
|
51.39
|
Accredited on Watch
|
Yellow
|
Downtown Denver Expeditionary
School
|
41.51
|
Accredited on Watch
|
38.12
|
Accredited
on Priority Watch
|
Orange
|
Rocky Mountain School of
Expeditionary Learning*
|
STATE’S SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK –
2017 –
Accredited with Distinction
|
||||
*Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning, though
located in Denver, operates under the five-district Expeditionary BOCES (Aurora, Cherry Creek, Denver, Douglas and Littleton).
KIPP
School
|
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
|
Denver’s SPF rating
2016
|
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned- 2017
|
Denver’s SPF rating
2017
|
SPF Color rating
2017
|
KIPP Northeast Denver
Leadership Academy
|
87.62
|
Distinguished
|
90.51
|
Distinguished
|
Blue
|
KIPP Sunshine Peak Academy
|
75.20
|
Meets Expectations
|
69.43
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
KIPP Denver Collegiate High
School
|
64.49
|
Meets Expectations
|
66.61
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
KIPP Northeast Elementary
|
-
|
-
|
66.07
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
KIPP Montbello College Prep/
KIPP Northeast Denver Middle School
|
34.85
|
Accredited
on Priority Watch
|
32.20
|
Accredited
on Probation
|
Red
|
STRIVE Prep
School
|
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
|
Denver’s SPF rating
2016
|
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2017
|
Denver’s SPF rating
2017
|
SPF Color rating
2017
|
STRIVE
Prep - RISE
|
-
|
-
|
91.74
|
Distinguished
|
Blue
|
STRIVE
Prep – Ruby Hill
|
80.49
|
Distinguished
|
74.03
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
STRIVE
Prep- Federal
|
75.38
|
Meets
Expectations
|
68.16
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
STRIVE
Prep – Green Valley Ranch
|
61.48
|
Meets
Expectations
|
60.38
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
STRIVE
Prep - Montbello
|
61.54
|
Meets
Expectations
|
55.87
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
STRIVE
Prep - Kepner
|
-
|
-
|
53.64
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
STRIVE
Prep - Westwood
|
56.92
|
Meets
Expectations
|
51.14
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
STRIVE
Prep - Lake
|
56.69
|
Meets
Expectations
|
51.48
|
Meets Expectations
|
Green
|
STRIVE
Prep - Sunnyside
|
54.62
|
Meets
Expectations
|
45.71
|
Accredited on
Watch
|
Yellow
|
STRIVE
Prep - Excel
|
55.90
|
Meets
Expectations
|
43.33
|
Accredited on
Watch
|
Yellow
|
STRIVE
Prep – SMART Academy
|
47.34
|
Accredited
on Watch
|
36.51
|
Accredited on Priority Watch
|
Orange
|
Denver School of Science and
Technology
School
|
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
|
Denver’s SPF rating
2016
|
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned- 2017
|
Denver’s SPF rating
2017
|
SPF Color rating
2017
|
DSST:
Byers Middle
|
81.48
|
Distinguished
|
89.9
|
Distinguished
|
Blue
|
DSST:
College View High
|
91.67
|
Distinguished
|
86.9
|
Distinguished
|
Blue
|
DSST:
Stapleton High
|
83.71
|
Distinguished
|
86.2
|
Distinguished
|
Blue
|
DSST:
Green Valley Ranch High
|
85.38
|
Distinguished
|
80.6
|
Distinguished
|
Blue
|
DSST:
Green Valley Ranch Middle
|
71.11
|
Meets
Expectations
|
78.96
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
DSST:
Cole High
|
80.49
|
Distinguished
|
77.0
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
DSST:
Stapleton Middle
|
71.11
|
Meets
Expectations
|
73.8
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
DSST:
Conservatory Green Middle
|
74.41
|
Meets
Expectations
|
73.5
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
DSST:
Byers HS
|
-
|
-
|
71.4
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
DSST:
College View Middle
|
66.67
|
Meets
Expectations
|
60.9
|
Meets
Expectations
|
Green
|
DSST:
Henry Middle
|
-
|
-
|
40.91
|
Accredited on Watch
|
Yellow
|
DSST:
Cole Middle
|
48.15
|
Accredited on Watch
|
39.89
|
Accredited on Watch
|
Yellow
|
I include the STRIVE and DSST results to emphasize that not even our strongest
existing networks have the issue solved; however, their experience in support
of their lowest-performers could be instructive for all potential
networks. It is called “having skin in
the game.”
Our name,
our reputation, means the world to us as individuals. Similarly, I believe those who care about the
integrity of their school’s name, brand, or identity—however you call it—will
be eager to work together to see that all
their schools offer a quality education.
Moreover, teachers in low-performing schools would much sooner look to
and learn from educators—committed to the same approach—who are more
successful.
Several
schools are already thinking this way. In “These Denver schools want to join the
district’s ‘innovation zone’ or form new zones,”[xv]
Chalkbeat Colorado listed two Beacon
school and two McAuliffe schools among the applicants. I simply repeat: let’s not confuse a) the
power of networks among schools with common beliefs, and b) innovation zones,
which has not proven helpful to low-performing schools. On the previous pages you read of 15 schools
that are not Meeting Expectations. I
believe they could benefit from a network with like-minded schools, without succumbing
to the illusion that being on “innovation” will improve student achievement.
A network
based on autonomy and taking back control holds far less potential
than a network built around pride in our name, pride in what we stand for and
practice as educators.
Two final thoughts
First, Superintendent
Tom Boasberg and DPS have put in place Teacher Leadership and Collaboration
that wisely makes good use of colleagues to coach and assess fellow
teachers. Can Denver see how schools
sharing a common model can play a similar role, providing that “trusted
coach/colleague” to their peers, especially to “their schools” struggling with
low student achievement?
Second, Colorado law speaks of a school board’s “control of
instruction in the public schools of their respective districts.”[xvi]
But times have changed. The preceding
pages remind us that in 2018 the Denver school board no longer “controls” the type
of instruction and curriculum used by its 200-plus schools. While schools must show they will address the
state standards, as for curriculum, a host of models are welcome—Montessori,
Expeditionary Learning, DSST, etc. Consider
then an intriguing similarity:
DPS schools / Charter schools in Colorado - with these educational designs*
Denver
Public Schools (205 schools)
|
|||
DSST
|
12
|
Core Knowledge
|
73
|
STRIVE
|
12
|
STEM/STEAM
|
16
|
Early College
|
5
|
Classical
|
14
|
KIPP
|
5
|
Montessori
|
12
|
DCIS
|
4
|
Expeditionary Learning
|
9
|
Montessori
|
4
|
Early College
|
8
|
Expeditionary Learning
|
3
|
Dual Language/Language Immersion
|
7
|
Rocky Mountain Prep
|
3
|
Project Based
|
6
|
*Numbers are
based on dated information. Likely higher now.
Can DPS learn from the League a new approach—more modest,
less intrusive—regarding curriculum?
I recall the early days of the Colorado League of Charter
Schools and how executive director Jim Griffin would insist that the League be
“agnostic” about school models. My
experience with the League tells me it has maintained that openness to a broad
range of educational philosophies. Several models listed above have state-wide
and even national networks (in the case of Expeditionary Learning, over 150
schools in 33 states[xviii])
that hold conferences and offer professional development. The League informs its schools about such
events. A district equally agnostic on
curriculum could do the same.
AV #167 – Even LESS evidence now to grant
innovation status to low-performing schools (Sept. 2017)
AV #177 - APS
school board still not being told student achievement data in ACTION Zone
(March 2018)
[vi] I sensed an even deeper bond when teaching in a
Catholic school here in Parker, CO; this non-Catholic could sense how the
“frame of reference,” if you will, made it natural and meaningful when we met
from other teachers within the Archdiocese to discuss standards and curriculum.
[x]
“A pilot program, also called a feasibility study or
experimental trial, is a small-scale, short-term experiment that helps an
organization learn how a large-scale project might work in practice.” https://www.google.com/search?q=pilot+program&oq=pilot+program&aqs=chrome..69i57.3088j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
[xiii] My count, using Denver’s 2017 School Performance
Framework, which includes a column for enrollment. If this estimate seems high,
note that six of Denver’s large high schools are among those Accredited on Watch (George Washington,
John F. Kennedy, North, South, and Bruce Randolph) or Accredited on Priority Watch (Abraham Lincoln).
[xiv]
See http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2017/05/19/these-22-schools-just-won-approval-from-the-denver-school-board/: 4 more University Prep schools; 3 more Rocky
Mountain Prep schools; and 3 more STRIVE elementary schools.
[xvii] Among the 25 types listed in the state’s 2016 report,
“Charter School Diversity of Educational Programming, 2014-2015, http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/20160719stateofcharterupdated
