Monday, July 1, 2019

AV #196 - "Self-governing schools" in Colorado - Nearly 14% of our K-12 system


From 0 to 255: Our state’s steady support of a new way to govern public schools

1.       Introduction – A look back to proposals from 30 years ago. Has the K-12 system changed?
2.       “Self-governing schools” (charter schools) – from 0 to 255 – numbers, graphs
3.       The “c” word. How the debate about charters misses the point. The larger questions to ask: Who is   in charge of a school? Who should be? Key words: authority, control, and responsibility.
4.       Charter school law – Language revealing its central concern with authority, control, and   responsibility.
5.       “Who is in charge?” part 1- “Schools as Units of Change.” A focus on leadership and autonomy.
6.       “Who is in charge?” part 2 - “The State of Education” from the Colorado Leadership Council.
7.       “Self-governing schools” – A 30-year-old idea? In Colorado, try 1864. Once it was all we knew.   Still true for most small rural districts. Consider a list of 10 self-governing schools that have   operated successfully for over 50 years. Not “district-run.” No need for a central office.


1.      Introduction

Another View is looking back at public policy recommendations from 30 years ago – the Keystone Conference of September 1989 – to see if the proposed changes, and the hope of a more flexible K-12 system, one that would offer greater freedom and choice for education and families, have been realized. 

Last month’s AV #195 recalled Keystone’s recommendation for alternative teacher certification, which led to a bill signed by Gov. Roy Romer the following spring (1990). Another View presented the remarkable growth of Colorado’s alternative licensure program: nearly one quarter of new teachers in Colorado (over 750 annually, of late) are now prepared through alternative routes. Do we have greater flexibility in how we prepare and welcome new teachers to the profession? Absolutely.

In AV #196 we examine two proposals from three decades ago that called for a new approach to school governance. They imagined a fundamental change as to who is in charge—who is responsible—for a school’s performance. The goal was to place (or return) real authority into the hands of the school. (Two other policy recommendations, for magnet schools and school within schools, reflected similar ideas.[i]) 


Self-governing schools. … Colorado needs to move at once to empower those principals and teachers who have accepted the RESPONSIBILITY for the education of their students, with the AUTHORITY they need to achieve the goals set by the district, state, and federal government. Such schools should have, as in the case of New Zealand, broad POWERS in determining how they spend money, structure the curriculum, and conduct the day-to-day operations of the school. It is expected that many self-governing schools will have active parental advisory bodies for governing boards.                                    (84% of responses essential or important)

Alternative School Governance Structures. To achieve improved education outcomes for students, a governing body other than the local school district may be appropriate.  The possibilities range from the experiment in Chelsea, Massachusetts, where the governance of the district was turned over to Boston University, to Chicago, where neighborhood groups have assumed RESPONSIBILITY for their schools, to New Jersey, where a district was recently declared  by the courts to be educationally bankrupt and was assigned to the state for management.                                                                                                                                 (58% of responses essential or important)

Unlike the proposal for alternative licensure, legislators brought forth no major policy ideas around school governance the following spring, or in 1991. This changed in 1992, for by then Minnesota and California had passed legislation enabling the creation of self-governing schools. (Yes—charter schools.) The Gates Family Foundation hosted a one-day conference in December of 1992, bringing leaders from the successful efforts in Minnesota and California to explain their new laws. Within six months a bipartisan charter school law was passed and signed by Gov. Romer.

Am I steering clear of the “c” word – for charters – for a reason? Yes, see section 3. The term keeps us from seeing what was, and what remains, a central purpose behind the larger change they represent.

Did passage of the Charter School Act bring about dramatic systemic change? A few graphs (section 2) reveal that, to say the least, the change in K-12 public education has been huge. The first two charter schools opened that very fall of 1993. Today we have 255 new choices for families and students; 255 options unavailable back in the early 1990’s; 255 public schools operating with a new freedom from state mandates, more firmly in control of their own performance, much as was imagined at Keystone three decades ago.

But is it a systemic change? A debatable point. After all, most large school districts in Colorado have not adopted the fundamental principles underlying self-governing schools. Nevertheless, as this model now serves 13.7% of students in Colorado public schools, it is clearly a significant part of the “the family of public schools,” as the Colorado League of Charter Schools likes to put it. And in the case of the many strong charters, we now have plenty of examples to show that self-governance and school autonomy can be crucial factors in a school’s success.

1993-94 to 2015-16 - http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/20160719stateofcharterupdated
2016-17 to 2018-19 – from Colorado League of Charter Schools (CLCS)


1995-96 to 2017-18 from CDE - https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdechart/chartenroll.asp  (2012-13 based on my own addition)
*2019 – email to me from Colorado League of Charter Schools (CLCS)

Colorado - Percentage of public school students in a charter school

09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19
8%
8.6%
9.8%
10.4%
10.9%
11.4%
12.1%
12.7%
13.2%
13.7%
2009-10 to 2012-13 – my math - from CDE’s reports on total enrollment and on charter school enrollment
2018-19 – email to me from Colorado League of Charter Schools (CLCS)


“Colorado has second highest percentage of charter public school students in the country relative to the total state enrollment.” *

*https://coloradoleague.org/page/infographics -Data from National Center for Education Statistics

3.      The “c” word. How our debate about charters misses the point.
The larger question to ask: Who is in charge of a school? Who should be?
Key words: authority and control; autonomy and responsibility.

Why have I stressed self-governing schools rather than the easy shorthand, charter schools? Because the older phrase is less politicized; there is no stigma attached. And because it reminds us of the essential principle that animated and informed the charter movement—at least in its early years. In contrast, the “c” word has become a red flag for so many—a derogatory term associated with not-neighborhood schools, semi-private schools, and schools-that-refuse-to-serve-everyone. And more recently, to further obfuscate matters, a term now identified with Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.  
I meet people who are reflective and cautious when we discuss a range of education issues, but once the “c” word arises, their mind is made up. They are absolutely certain (no proof required!) these schools are anti-equity, anti-democratic, anti-the-public-good, etc. etc. - and what can you say to that?
My generation grew up with another “c” word that struck fear in the heart: cancer. It is a great blessing that today – 50 years later—the word does not seem so grim, so fatal. Hope of recovery, of a full-life, is often possible.
In education circles, and among the public as well, will it take that long for the intense—even irrational—responses to today’s “c” word, and the charter idea, to subside? 

4.      Colorado Charter School law – decision-making, responsibility, authority

To start, we would do well to return to Colorado’s charter school law. There we can rediscover the language that reflected largely bipartisan hopes for what this new kind of school would offer. Key words and concepts in the state law speak to who makes decisions (people in the school, not the central office), e.g. control of the budget, the curriculum, the hiring, etc. This new approach to governance, we said then, meant that “educators and parents and the community” (not the district) could take the lead in opening a new school—and running it.  (All bold mine)

22-30.5-102. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that:
(a) It is the obligation of all Coloradans to provide all children with schools that reflect high expectations and create conditions in all schools where these expectations can be met;
(b) Education reform is in the best interests of the state in order to strengthen the performance of elementary and secondary public school pupils, that the best education decisions are made by those who know the students best and who are responsible for implementing the decisions, and, therefore, that educators and parents have a right and a responsibility to participate in the education institutions which serve them;
(c) Different pupils learn differently and public school programs should be designed to fit the needs of individual pupils and that there are educators, citizens, and parents in Colorado who are willing and able to offer innovative programs, educational techniques, and environments but who lack a channel through which they can direct their innovative efforts.
(2) (e) To create new employment options and professional opportunities for teachers and principals, including the opportunity to be responsible for the achievement results of students at the school site…
On governance, the law made it clear who had responsibility for the school’s performance.
22-30.5-104 – requirements – authority - “A charter school shall be administered and governed by a governing body in a manner agreed to by the charter school applicant and the chartering local board of education.”
The law – 22-30.5-110 (Charter schools – term – renewal of charter – grounds for nonrenewal or revocation) also made it clear these new schools would be accountable for their performance.
Wouldn’t we benefit from returning to these themes—decision-making, responsibility, and authority—at the heart of self-governance, when we debate the merits of charter schools?

Education Commission of the States


5.  Where we were asking the question, “Who is in charge?” – part 1  
"Schools as Units of Change Examines Education Transformation in Denver" [v] (April 2018)

   “Over the past decade, Denver Public Schools (DPS) has emerged as one of the most innovative and rapidly improving big-city school districts in the nation…. Underpinning this progress has been the commitment of district leaders to sound, responsive policies – including the idea of schools as the unit of change. District leaders have embraced school-based autonomy in many forms: high-performing charter schools have helped to significantly increase the number of high-quality seats for students, and district-run innovation schools have helped to diversify school models and expand the impact of strong school leaders.”
Gates Family Foundation’s summary for the event.[vi]
For most, a conference held 30 years ago will seem quaint, even irrelevant, when confronting our current challenges. Not so for the 150 of us who gathered last year at an event under the bold heading: “Schools as the Unit of Change: Building on Progress in Denver.” (That very idea might seem subversive in Adams 14, Aurora, and Pueblo. It is clearly not embraced by all candidates for the Denver school board.) The common themes at the four sessions that day: (1) successful transformation of large districts like Denver demands greater school autonomy; (2) effective leadership at the school level is possible when a principal and his or her school community are truly confident they can lead—they can make the key decisions on the budget, hiring, and curriculum—rather than feeling compelled to follow, to carry out the district’s latest directives.


                        
Empowering Denver’s School Leaders for Change[vii]
Strong school leaders are stepping forward in increasing numbers to request more school-level control over their campus budgets, time, and focus. How could Denver’s systems and structures better support school leaders as the catalysts for positive change? What are the prerequisites for successful autonomy? How do we prepare a pipeline of educators to lead autonomous schools and networks? Where are the “break the mold” school models? How do we increase racial, ethnic, and gender diversity among our education leaders?” (Bold mine)

See also Alan Gottlieb’s summary of this session, “Realizing Autonomy, Embracing Diversity Remain Challenges.”[viii] It began this way:

Even in an environment like Denver that empowers principals, strong leaders are continually pushing their systems to gain more autonomy over more areas of their operation.
That was the consensus of principals from all types of schools — traditional district-run, innovation, and charter — on the “Empowering School Leaders” panel at the “Schools as the Unit of Change” convening.
Participants also agreed that more freedom should lead not only to better outcomes for kids, but also to greater community engagement. That means doing everything possible to sure that the staff reflects the community it’s serving. (Bold mine)

Power, leadership, autonomy, freedom….  Aren’t these the vital concepts that are worthy of an adult conversation, rather than the childish and petty back and forth around the “c” word?

Charter schools are publicly funded, privately managed 
and semi-autonomous schools of choice.”[ix]
National Conference of State Legislatures


6.      Where we were not asking the question, “Who is in charge?” – part 2
“The State of Education” from the Education Leadership Council missed the chance to address this most basic question.  (December 2018)

District

Charter Population
District Population
% of District
GREELEY 6
5,416
22,503
24.07%
DOUGLAS COUNTY
16,207
67,591
23.98%
DENVER COUNTY
20,620
91,998
22.41%
SCHOOL DISTRICT 27J
3,951
18,712
21.11%
HARRISON 2
2,345
11,708
20.03%
Last year also saw the release of the report from the Education Leadership Council, “The State of Education.” In over 50 pages, the Council, a distinguished group first convened by Gov. John Hickenlooper in 2017, presented its “framework and strategic plan” for education in our state. To no one’s surprise, it reflects current trends (an emphasis on “student-directed learning experiences,” students’ “mental, social and emotional health,” and “career and workforce readiness.”) But how disappointing that it failed to take an in-depth look at school governance—when, as the “Schools as Units of Change” summit indicated, this topic is so central to whether or not our large and low-performing school districts can make progress. And when the most important book on self-governance in America’s urban school districts, David Osborne’s Reinventing America’s Schools (2017), featured Denver Public Schools, along with the school districts in New Orleans and Washington, D.C. What concept does Osborne stress again and again in explaining the shift in control necessary for urban districts to improve? School autonomy. (See Index-30 references.)

The report fell short, not only for overlooking the dramatic changes in our capital city (cover story, Education Next, spring 2019[x]), but for not reflecting—as I have shown—how our K-12 system is so different than it was 30 years ago. How different we are, in fact, from most of the 50 states. Colorado has demonstrated the second greatest support for this “new” way to enable schools to govern themselves (see page 4). Last year a number of districts enrolled over one-fifth of their students in self-governing public schools (see box; data from CLCS). The freedom and flexibility now available to 255 schools shows us an entirely new meaning of “local control”—now in the hands of these schools, not their district.

Still, a few excerpts from “The State of Education” reveal that, on occasion, it touched on governance. Some recognition, at least, around the questions of who makes decisions and who is responsible for what takes place in our 1,900 schools. For those of us who believe such questions ought to be front and center as we envision a better way forward, we can make our case by building on the points below. 

Executive Summary
The principles for a world-class education system were developed through tremendous input from roughly 40 key stakeholders around the state and tested against input gathered from our public survey and 70+ roundtable discussions. The principles fall under four major drivers of change. We believe each driver of change represents a necessary area for shared focus and meaningful progress if we want to achieve a world-class education system.

Under one of the four “drivers of change,” Responsive Systems, we read: (Bold, capitalization, mine)

• Devolve decision-making AUTHORITY, maintaining accountability for rigorous outcomes

When it develops that section Responsive Systems and Agile Learners (page 15), we read:

This subcommittee focused its time on exploring how to create education systems that are responsive to these changing – and often daunting—realities. In responsive education systems, we believe that educators can harness personalization to produce agile learners who can continually adapt, grow, and prosper in a dynamic and interconnected world. To do that, we need those closest to students to be responsible for making DECISIONS about learning environments, we need agile funding systems, and we need an array of high-quality educational options to meet the various needs of our diverse society and ensure equitable opportunities for all students. Essentially, our education system itself needs to model the agility that we expect from learners.

It then lists four “principles and strategies [that] offer a variety of paths for Colorado to attain that aspiration,” including:

Principle 2: Educators and school leaders, in conjunction with students and families, have the autonomy to make meaningful DECISIONS about learning while being held accountable for rigorous outcomes. Responsive systems need flexibility to be reactive to the diverse needs of learners and the changing world around them. Colorado must have clear, high expectations for all students and learning providers, while giving learning providers autonomy in how they achieve those expectations and support for pursuing innovative practices. Those closest to the students should be making DECISIONS regarding staffing, scheduling, budgeting, and instructional systems, so that learning environments can be relevant, personalized, and contextualized.

Strategy A. Promote flexibility in the education system.

• Be explicit about what flexibilities already exist and identify remaining rules and administrative practices that create specific barriers for innovating schools.
• Ensure flexibilities and autonomies granted through mechanisms like charters and innovation status are protected.
• Create learning environments that provide opportunities for flexibility, such as after-school programs, summer school, special purpose innovation zones, or credit-bearing opportunities for experiential or work-based learning to occur during the school day.

Surely flexibility is another key word that would enrich our discussions. It is related to choice and innovation, as well as to “standards without standardization.” It represents the opposite of the top-down district model, the one-size-fits-all system that we universally deride. Isn’t flexibility a concept we all support? Let’s look at the evidence—unavailable 25 years ago—as to how the flexibility in the charter law and the way it has been implemented, especially the waivers from state and districts guidelines, have proved beneficial for schools and their students.  


7.        “Self-governing schools” – A 30-year-old idea? No, this goes way back. After all, before large school districts appeared, it is all we knew. Isn’t this how it still works in small rural districts? And it has always been true for most independent schools, in the U.S. and in Colorado.

In the 19th century, public schools existed before districts appeared. Though the term might have seemed silly to our small schools scattered across the prairie, all were “self-governing.”  

Early in the 20th century, much the same. Across most of America, the idea of a central office controlling what took place in its small number of schools would have seemed foolish. Decisions were made by the schools. Even when part of a district, we might have called them “semi-autonomous.” (Sound familiar?)

In the fall of 2018, the majority of Colorado school districts (99) served fewer than 800 students. Districts designated as “small rural” (under 1,000 students) numbered 107. There were 125 districts with fewer than 2,000 students (for perspective, in 2018-19 there were 25 Colorado high schools enrolling over 2,000 students). In our small rural districts, the so-called “central office” often numbers 4 or 5 people—with their offices in one of the handful of schools. Hard to imagine power struggles when the school and the district are almost one and the same. Rural superintendents, principals, and teachers must find it baffling to pick up The Denver Post and read about those “downtown” mandating what happens across a 200-school district. Our metro-area buzz about Site-Based Management (SBM) and schools as the units of change must seem equally strange. For It is all they have ever known.

If self-governance is a way of life in our smaller districts, it is absolutely critical to independent private schools here and across the country. No district offices exist. Leadership is squarely in the hands of the schools. It doesn’t always work: some fail, many struggle. And they can be expensive. But one cannot say self-governance is merely a recent fad, or has not been tested and proven successful. I graduated from one independent private school in Massachusetts (founded 1797) and taught in another in New York (founded 1814). Over 200 years. Do we need more proof?

OK, how about in Colorado? Here are 10 well-regarded schools that have existed for over 50 years, with their founding date. All 10 are members of the Association of Colorado Independent Schools.

1.       St. Mary’s Academy – 1864
2.       Colorado Academy – 1906
3.       Kent Denver School – 1922
4.       Graland Country Day School – 1924
5.       Fountain Valley School – 1930
6.       St. Anne’s Episcopal School – 1950
7.       Colorado Rocky Mountain School – 1953
8.       Steamboat Mountain School – 1957
9.       Vail Mountain School – 1962
10.   The Colorado Springs School - 1962

In that light, the proposal from the Keystone Conference of 30 years ago is almost recent. Let’s review it:

Colorado needs to move at once to empower those principals and teachers who have accepted the RESPONSIBILITY for the education of their students, with the AUTHORITY they need to achieve the goals set by the district, state, and federal government.

This is how most independent private schools, like those above, operate. It is how the majority of Colorado districts operate. And today it is essentially how 255 public schools in Colorado operate.
Self-governance is neither a new nor unproven idea. For three decades few states have done more than Colorado to bring real authority and responsibility back into the hands of our schools—where it belongs. Do we still believe this is the right direction for K-12 education in Colorado? Many of us hope so.

End#196

Previous newsletters on school governance

AV #23 – Governance (7/2000)
“In an environment where testing and grading schools crowd out other issues, it is important at look at the very structures we have created that govern public education. In the 1990’s parents gained more choice and control over their children’s education. But principals, teachers, and parents in too many schools still feel our current governance structures leave them with little control or authority. The system in many districts remains top-down, and the frustration among those who are asked to lead our schools and teach our students grows…. We must put in place new forms of governance.”
AV #51 - China and school districts – control or freedom? (7/2008)
AV #60 - Are we beginning to see a connection between school autonomy and a better teaching staff? (9/2009)
AV #99 - Charters and Bureaucracy-A look back, a look ahead: charter law 20 years ago; urban school districts in 10 years (7/2013)
AV #124 - Governance of K-12 Public Education in Colorado - What’s wrong with this picture? (1/2015)
AV #161 - Schools with a mission - What if all public schools (not just charters) were asked to define what they are about? (5/2017)



Endnotes



[i] Magnet schools. Create specialized and challenging schools for students within a district or metropolitan area, or statewide residential magnet schools that would provide opportunities for gifted and talented students whose potential would otherwise not be realized.                                                                                                                              (67% of responses essential or important)
Schools Within Schools.  Schools need to become more humane institutions that address the needs of individual children. To accomplish this end, teachers need to see fewer students for more hours each day and schools must have varied curriculums to allow children to achieve their maximum potential. Existing schools need to be restructured (e.g. divide a large school into units of no more than 400 students) so that the existing atmosphere of anonymity is replaced by a sense of community, and each student is known well by his teachers and peers.                                                                   (78% of responses essential or important)
[ii]Public Education: A Shift in the Breeze” - September 22-25, 1989 – Keystone Conference
“In the fall of 1989, the Gates Family Foundation convened the conference at the ski resort town of Keystone, with the stated purpose to bring together a critical mass of Colorado’s leaders with the nation’s leading experts on educational reform in order that the State’s leaders can learn first-hand about the successful reforms presently under way throughout the United States so that they might, if they wish, act to institute such reforms as seem to be potentially productive, throughout the state of Colorado. The conference, held September 20-23, was named “Public Education: A Shift in the Breeze.” Nine national leaders in public education, representing various efforts at educational reform, spoke to 225 leaders of the Colorado legislature, educational establishment, and various business and private sectors.
“Keynote speakers for the conference were: Dr. Ernest L. Boyer, President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Senior Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson School in Princeton; Fletcher Byrom, retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Koppers Company, Inc.; Dr. Saul Cooperman, Commissioner of Education for the State of New Jersey; Dr. John Goodlad, author of 22 books and the Director of the University of Washington’s Center for Educational Renewal; Dr. Frank Newman, President of the Education Commission of the States; Dr. Ruth Randall, Commissioner of Education for the State of Minnesota; Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado; Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers; Dr. Theodore R. Sizer, Chairman of the Education Department at Brown University and Chairman of the Coalition of Essential Schools; and Dr. William Youngblood, Principal of the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics.”
    FROM “On the Road of Innovation: Colorado’s Charter School Law Turns 20,” Independence Institute, June 2013
[v] https://gatesfamilyfoundation.org/schools-as-the-unit-of-change-examines-education-transformation-in-denver-2/, a one-day conference hosted by the Gates Family Foundation, held at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, April 13, 2018.
[x] “Redesigning Denver’s Schools - The Rise and Fall of Superintendent Tom Boasberg,” by Parker BaxterTodd L. Ely and Paul Teske, spring 2019 - https://www.educationnext.org/redesigning-denver-schools-rise-fall-superintendent-tom-boasberg/
“Closely connected to Boasberg’s concern for accountability was his desire to empower school leaders and educators to inject innovation into the district. He argued that ‘accountability without autonomy is compulsion,’ and that real accountability for student outcomes requires giving educators control over inputs.”

No comments:

Post a Comment