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])
FROM the 19 public policy recommendations
supported by a majority of the 225 state leaders at the Keystone Conference,
“Public Education: A Shift in the Breeze,” sponsored by the Gates Family
Foundation. (More information on the conference, here.[ii]) (Bold/capitals
mine.)
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.
|
Colorado
Department of Education
|
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.” *
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.”
|
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)
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
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.
[vi] From the Gates Family Foundation’s “brief summary of the current education
landscape in Denver” for the
event. https://gatesfamilyfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Schools_as_the_Unit_of_Change_April_13_Reading_and_Agenda.pdf
[x] “Redesigning Denver’s Schools - The Rise and Fall of
Superintendent Tom Boasberg,” by Parker Baxter, Todd 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