So, What is a poor charter school to do?

Seems like you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Let's look at some criticisms of charter schools and some frustrating elements from the charter school side.

• Charter Schools perform, on average, below traditional public schools.

This may be true. There have been reports that have come to this conclusion. The problem is with the way that this conclusion is used. The conclusion often is that this fact should make people oppose charter schools as a whole. The fact is that charter schools that do well far exceed their traditional counterparts. So, why not learn from those schools rather than try to find a reason to criticize? The purpose of charter schools was to allow for innovation that could be replicated. Why are public schools not replicating charter school successes?

• Charter Schools take money away from the local schools.

This is only true if you assume that charter schools shouldn't exist. If you believe in the right to public monopolies, then it's true. If you believe that charter schools should exist, even conceptually, then the truth is that charter schools are underfunded and not treated fairly in any state. Charter school have a huge financial disadvantage, which may in some cases explain why they lag behind traditional schools.

• Charter Schools cream the top students

Charter schools are schools of choice. No one is excluded or forced to attend a charter school. Many charter schools seek the worst students or troubled students. In Colorado, we have charter schools that focus on immigrants and youth that are in the juvenile justice system. Why is it that when a charter school succeeds, opponents will pull out any excuse to criticize it rather than emulate it?


These are just a few of the common criticisms that charter schools have to endure, often unfairly. Are there low performing charter schools? ABSOLUTELY. Most of us in the charter school movement have been open about that. We've also been open about improving or closing those that fail. However, there is a bigger question that many fail to ask. How long does it take to prove a new concept or method? There are two more questions that I've been asking myself lately that are related. How much lower must a charter school perform that it is statistically verifiable that the charter school is failing, especially given the value of freedom involved in allowing for choice and options? The second is what is an appropriate measure for closing schools? There is a huge debate about the value of standardized testing as the sole measure of a school or teacher. What other measures might we add? For example, many charter schools emphasize character or hands on learning. Is it possible that those methods or philosophies lead to lower test scores, but better people and more successful people, in the long run. No one believes that knowledge alone makes a successful contributing member of society.

So, what is a poor charter school to do?

1. Do the best you can for your students.
2. Be honest about your philosophy, method and results.
3. Learn from successful charter schools.
4. Do not be a lone wolf.

Doing those four things won't guarantee success, but it will improve your school.


For more information, see my previous post about secrets to success in charter schools.

Let a Thousand Schools Bloom—Only Works if You’re Willing to Prune Blossoms

Chairman Mao would have liked the charter school movement. Until he didn’t and executed all the leaders and converted the schools to reeducation centers.

Unlike Anita Dunn, I’m not a big fan of Chairman Mao. His willingness to execute even loyal opposition cost China a generation of international presence. But there is something to learn, even from one of the three great murderers of the 20^th century.

The quote I allude to in the title is:

"Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land."

You can learn more about the quote at The Phrase Finder

—including the American tendency to misquote the phrase as “a thousand flowers bloom”.

In the charter school world, schools are exactly like blossoms. They draw from common seeds—the value of parental choice, entrepreneurial leadership and the market dynamic of autonomy+accountability. The charter school sector has already been through a period of rapid expansion and growth. Now the movement is conflicted. Political and NGO forces are aligned to authorize charter schools and lift caps. These social forces are already leading to more and better authorization options—and should spawn a second expansion. At the same time, some charter schools are stalling out. They are financially stable, organizationally mature, and academically indistinguishable from traditional school options. Parents are still choosing charter schools, even when their academic results don’t necessarily justify the choice. Even though the academic performance of charter school is a matter of serious scholarly debate, the growth and energy of the movement is undeniable.

In some cases the parent attitude seems to be, “Our school may get mixed/mediocre results, but they’re OUR results.” As a charter school leader, I often hear a sense of palpable resentment from parents who feel they were ignored, excluded and shut out of their child’s traditional public school. They are advocates and zealots for their school, not because of how it performs, but because of how they feel about it.

This is where charter school advocates and leaders need the ruthlessness of a chairman Mao. We must advocate for pruning (closing) schools that don’t improve K-12 education ecosystem. This means we will be in the unusual position of opposing the very parents who brought the charter school movement to life.

In Mao’s case, he arguably used the pretext of a Chinese marketplace of ideas to identify dissidents so he could execute them. In the case of the charter school movement we aren’t looking for dissidents, but we are looking for school models that don’t improve education. When we find them, we must prune them from the garden. As a matter of integrity, charter school advocates must be as impatient with underperforming charter schools as we are with the inertia of traditional public schools.

I don’t agree with the approach of CREDO and others who criticize charter schools based on the performance of first-year students. There are reasonable timeframes and performance measures that can give a fair evaluation. In general, I support the idea of three or five-year renewal cycles for initial charter authorization. My exhortation to those authorizers would be to set clear, measurable performance targets from year one so the school leaders know what they need to do to stay in business. Then the authorizer needs to make sure those expectations have teeth. It is hard to close a school against popular opposition, but it is the right thing to do, as hundreds of school district boards have to conclude when they consolidate and close neighborhood schools faced with declining enrollment.

Public education will not get better overnight. There is no silver bullet, but there is a gold standard. Try a lot of schools and keep the ones that work—by outperforming the status quo. Let a hundred schools bloom. Snip the schools that don’t make the garden better, and create room to plant some more.

Plenty of reasons to find fault with unions

In Richard Kahlenberg's blog "Taking Note," Mr. Kahlenberg criticizes an article by Krtistof in which Mr. Kristof denounces unions as bad for education. While Kahlenberg makes a point that unions may not be the largest impediment to educating minorities or impoverished students, he ignores the fact that teachers' unions have consistently ignored the economic crisis by bargaining for higher wages in a time when many people are out of work or under-employed. In addition, teachers unions often protect teachers and their jobs and method of doing their jobs rather than adopting approaches to education that have been proven to work.

Kahlenberg also attributes anti-union sentiment to conservatives. It may surprise many of you, but I am not a conservative. I hold to some viewpoints that align with what many call "conservative," but I am no dyed in the wool, card carrying, line walking conservative. I like to observe and think for myself. In addition, while I am generally opposed to many of the actions that unions have been taking with regard to charter schools and pay for performance, I am not philosophically opposed to unions, just as I am not philosophically opposed to the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. If the teachers' unions acted more like professional associations and attempted to regulate themselves, then things would be a whole lot different and I would like to think that I'd be pro-union. The bottom line is that Mr. Kahlenberg paints with a broad brush that makes some of his details (that are often correct) miss the mark.

Saying that the KIPP model is not scalable is not completely true either. There are many elements of the KIPP model that are easily scalable and would improve education for many more impoverished children, if school districts would be daring enough to adopt them.

The fact is that unions are for their employees. Just as many unions criticize EMOs for having a conflict of interest, teachers' unions have a similar conflict. Ultimately, the goal of a teachers' union is not to educate children. It is to collect dues (which union leaders have admitted in some circumstances. See my blog for references.). Another goal of unions is to protect or enhance the jobs, salaries and job comforts of teachers. The union has no stated goals about teacher performance or how to weed out bad teachers.

If one wants to criticize unions, one does not have to rely on Kristof. One simply needs to look at them with eyes wide open.

If test scores don't measure performance, then why...?

So, here is a little issue that seems to be a contradiction to me. If test scores can't be used to measure teacher performance, how can they be used to judge charter school performance (or any school's for that matter).

One the primary objections to judging a teacher based on test scores is that teacher's can't control test scores. In addition, we all know that test scores aren't a perfect indicator of student achievement.

Test scores are one time, one test. There are all sorts of reasons a student or group of students might test poorly that day, or simply a few percentage points under (or above) their actual knowledge. I have a son who once tested very poorly on the CSAPs (Colorado's attempt at standardized testing). He scored particularly poorly in reading, even though anyone who had ever heard him read up to that point would know that he far exceeded most of this classmates in reading. He reads at least two grade levels above his actual grade and has scored advanced in reading the past two years.

OK, so now even charter supporters are measuring the success of a charter school almost exclusively on state standardized tests. Is anybody else confused?

Navigating the charter school lifecycle - stability isn't really stable

If the growth phase is navigated well and the delegation crisis is solved either through new leadership or the leader adapting to the new environment of delegation, the school reaches a stage of stability. (Some of you may not have ever felt this stage.) As experts are hired, jobs become more specific, policies are fully implements things begin to just work.

The stage of stability should be recognized as a relief for all but those who thrive on newness and frantic pace. At this point, people have their jobs to do and they know how to do them. They don’t know a lot about what others do, which (especially for those who love the growth phase) is frustrating and can lead to finger pointing. “I don’t know what he (or she) does all day long,” some will say.

However, for most people, this is a wonderful stage. It feels a bit like Nirvana. “We’ve arrived,” will be heard from many employees and parents. The sense of urgency and frantic pace subsides. People begin to do their work at a “normal” pace. All but the workaholics begin to work something more like a regular schedule. (Having worked in a charter school, I realize that a regular schedule for many is impossible, even in this stage; therefore, the emphasis is on “more like” than on “a regular schedule.”)

We might label this phase “peak performance.” Efficiency increases and predictability in both academic and administrative performance exists. The board functions as a governance body, not as a do everything body. People feel secure.

This is living!

While this is a great phase in the life of a charter school and should be enjoyed, leaders need to be aware of the hidden dangers of this phase. Because of the stability, some people will view this as boring. In addition, if leaders are not careful, the school will cease to innovate. Employees who are not naturally motivated to make change will enjoy the stability too much. The tell-tale signs of the end of the stability phase are when people begin saying things such as “we’ve never done it that way before” or “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This was originally published on www.examiner.com

See part 1 and part 2 in this series.

Utah off track

According to an editorial that I wish I had written, Utah is considering closing 18 charter schools because of the economic crisis. While I sympathize with boards of education in these tough economic times, the answer is NOT to go back on economic reforms. Charter schools provide an opportunity for innovation and choice. Several charter schools have done extremely well academically. The answer is not to simply close schools because of a budget issue that is likely to be short term.

The editorial "Don't Kill Charter Schools" correctly states that charter schools are a bargain for local taxpayers and spend far less money per pupil. In addition, they create an environment of both competition and collaboration (a point made recently at a charter school meeting in Colorado by Parker Baxter, a Denver Public School official).

That's enough from me. Read the original editorial. I wish I had written it.

A district that doesn't bow

In these tough economic times, people have been forced to do without. Probably in the neighborhood of 20 to 30% of families in the U.S. have been directly affected by unemployment or underemployment. The remainder have been hit by falling retirement plans, perhaps being forced to remain working for five to ten more years than expected depending on where they've invested and how the economy recovers. The true affects of this downturn have not yet been seen.

Many teachers' unions (and other unions, to be fair) have not seemed to realize this fact or are in great denial. Greeley-Evans School District 6, in Colorado, has voted to only partially fund the teachers' traditional salary scale. The hit to the teachers? a whopping 1.15% on average. Oh, and by the way, school contributions to the outdated, underfunded retirement program went up .9% so it's almost a wash. Not bad for an economy that has most state employees forced to take unpaid furloughs.

It would be easy for districts to cut other places and fund teachers' schedules, but in this economy, we all have to pay a little bit. The district voted to preserve the education of children instead of bowing to union demands. For this, I applaud them.

Teacher performance pay and why it needs to happen

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm going to readdress something that both sides of the teacher pay for performance aren't getting. The spark for today's outburst is a set of letters to the editor I found recently.

The teachers made two points, so far as I can tell (besides the usual inappropriate comparisons to other professionals). One is that teaching is a collaborative profession; therefore, teachers cannot be paid by their performance. In my current mood, I am tempted to throw a few profanities in here, but I won't. I'm glad this science teacher is not teaching my kids. First, is it not obvious to those who have spent most of our lives in non-teaching professional life that almost every profession is collaborative? I spent most of my career in finance and accounting. I cannot recall a work day that did not demand collaborative effort. Still, it was not difficult for my boss to evaluate my work nor for me to evaluate my employees' work. Perhaps it's because most teachers have never had to evaluate an employee that they don't get this. However, having taught adult learners for almost eighteen years, I can say that I find it easy to evaluate individual students, even when they are working on group projects. So, I don't get the logic. Collaborative does not mean that individuals cannot be evaluated.

The other teacher stressed the fact that test scores do not determine a teacher's ability or performance. The teacher introduced the issue of English Language Learners and students with other learning difficulties. This is where I agree, but also where we need to refute the improper logic on both sides of this issue. It is absolutely true the test scores, especially in any absolute measure or in any single year, reveal the true value and performance of a teacher. On the other hand, this also does not mean that a teacher's value and performance cannot be measured. It may mean that some measures are imprecise. It may also mean that some measures are intuited, and in some people's view subjective. (Intuition is not the same as subjective, but I don't have time to explain that here.)

My point has always been that:

1. We cannot adequately compare professionals of any stripe in terms of pay. Pay is determined by the market. Really good lawyers can make a whole lot of money no matte how many hours they work. Even a B lawyer makes much more money than a B CPA. So, ignoring teacher pay for a moment, the fact is that we can't compare professional pay based on hours, months worked, degrees held, etc.
2. Until we have a more (not less) government run educational system (with less union activity and no defined benefit plans and more relevant certification requirements), we don't have a chance of getting at a discussion of what a reasonable salary for a teacher would be.
   
3. It is obvious to any student, parent or principal (and usually good teachers) that not all teachers are the same. It may not be easy to give each teacher a precise numerical score to the one-hundredth decimal place, but it is pretty easy to grade A, B, C, D, etc.
4. There are attributes of good teaching that can be rewarded apart from student performance in a given year.
5. There are intuitive and subjective observations that can examine a teacher's attitude, ability to reach kids, passion, etc. that can and should be rewarded.
6. We can't compare teachers to executives or senior level members of other professions. A teacher gets raises no matter what. An accountant or lawyer only gets raises if their performance dictates a promotion. Teachers get steps and lanes and inflation (in most years). Normally teacher raises are greater than their counterparts in other professions and they don't have to take on additional responsibilities to get those raises.
7. Let's not forget that teachers only work nine to ten months out of the year. Yes, they work long hours during those weeks, but so do those in other professions who want to get ahead. Young lawyers and accountants frequently work 60 to 70 hours a week to get ahead. Those who don't, usually end up in a different profession or end up capped in a lower salary level.
   

There is no doubt that teaching is difficult job. Any job worth doing causes stress and is difficult. I greatly appreciate my kids' teachers over the past few years. It's amazing the influence some of them have had on my kids. However, I can also tell you the ones who just skated by or the ones who wouldn't put any extra effort into my kids or other kids. Pay for performance may be a bad word for many people, but there is a way to do it right. Like anything worth doing, it takes a lot of thought and a lot of working with stakeholders to get it right, but it can, should and must be done if we want to keep good teachers and let bad teachers go.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a side note, I had two wonderful conversations with my twin boys' teachers today. One does not have a teaching license and so couldn't teach in a traditional public school. In my kids' public charter school he is able to teach and he is phenomenal. In addition to his teaching duties, he goes out and often plays football or soccer with the kids and lunch or recess. I am so glad that Mr. Longenecker is my son's teacher, even if he doesn't have the government's stamp of approval. I am not sure of Mrs. Davis' licensure, but the conversation with her had to do with some additional effort she was putting into my other son's math homework. I told her not to kill herself, and she stated very matter of factly with no hesitation or hint of self-aggrandizement, "It's my job." Her body language and smile added, "and I love it." They should be paid much more than many of the other teachers I have met or my children have had in my lifetime.

Teachers (and administrators) are not all the same. They shouldn't be paid the same. "There is no greater evil than the equal treatment of unequals," said Justice Felix Frankfurter. Treating Mr. Longnecker and Mrs. Davis the same as unhelpful teachers is not fair to them and it encourages the behavior of the unhelpful teachers. It may be hard to set up a system to adequately distribute available resources to the various levels of teachers, but it isn't that hard to distinguish behaviors that make good, average, and bad teachers. If you find it that hard, then perhaps you shouldn't be managing them.

School Funding: What is enough? Perhaps Colorado has the answer

In a decision that could have huge impact on the state of Colorado's budget, the Colorado Supreme Court rules that those who complain that the Colorado budget has not allocated enough money to public education can sue and have the courts decide the question.

The issue arose in Colorado because the constitution states that education must be "thorough and uniform." Through state equalization funding, Colorado legislators have attempted to comply with the "uniform" aspect of the constitution. However, many have claimed that the state's funding does not provide a "thorough" education. The problem, as you might guess, is that thorough is a vague term. It seems to me that it's a lot like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.

The decision comes at an inopportune time for legislators, who are anticipating a huge budget deficit that needs to be fixed before the 2010-11 fiscal year begins. Governor Ritter and many legislators have been eyeing K-12 education for some of the cuts. Some have said the cuts to K-12 education could be as high as 8%.

While the court's decision may be the correct legal decision, it's a highly impractical one. It has the potential to pit the court against the state congress. In addition, it has the potential to pit some subjective definition of thorough against the realities of the economic crisis. As we all know, you can't spend more money than you have. (Well, given the state of most Americans' debt level, perhaps we don't all know that.)

One thing is certain. This will be a drawn out battle. "I think the judiciary would have a very challenging row to hoe to say what we are funding in Colorado is not adequate," King said, "but I've been surprised by courts in Colorado before." King thinks that the courts would take a long time to sort out the definition of thorough.

Will Colorado be able to answer the question of how much is enough spending for education? Stay tuned, because I don't think this one is over yet.

Charter schools and the organizational lifecycle - The pains of Growth

When the school first opens, people operate at a frenetic pace. People are thrust into jobs or tasks that they have never done before. Volunteers fill in the gaps. People thrive on the mission and everything seems to get done. In most cases a visionary leader (or leaders) drives the process. The sense of accomplishment is what drives all involved. The pace is almost irrational because no one could continue to work at this level for long. The pace is exhausting, but it’s also fun.

The first few years of the school’s life may be like this and everyone is involved. From the outside things seem to be going well, but there is a crisis brewing. Leaders are doing so much that they are reacting to problems rather than looking forward. People are hitting a physical wall. They can’t keep up the pace. Employees and Volunteers begin to drop off and try to hand things off to others.

The school begins to hire professionals for various jobs, and the jobs and the volunteer tasks become more specialized. People are used more for their strengths than just for their energy level. The founders often feel as if they are in the way or try to hold onto the beginning energy and wonder why others can’t keep it up. To increase reliability, the school hires employees to replace volunteers.

For many, the school feels less “fun” that it had in the past. Others wonder why the staff is growing when jobs used to be done with volunteers. The principal is spending more time on administrative tasks. You now have to know the right person to talk to.

This can create a crisis for early leaders. A school leader who was hired because he or she could get things done and was high energy and a board of founders has to adjust and begin slowing the pace and tying up loose ends. The school can no longer go on just getting things done.

The school must begin developing processes and procedures. In order to be efficient, people have to specialize and not all requests can be accommodated. Programs improve, but they are programs and they feel like programs. There is not as much improvisation.

This move into the growth phase is difficult for some leaders who are great in the opening phase. School boards need to examine the talents and abilities of the leader to ensure that the school leader can make the shift into the growth phase. Because, like it or not, the growth phase has to occur. In this phase it is sometimes necessary to “fire the founder.” This doesn’t really mean that the founder is unnecessary, but means that some founders have to step out of the way, at least for awhile, to let the growth phase happen.

While it doesn’t feel as fun, the growth phase begins to provide the processes and expertise that the school needs to ensure stability. In this phase the long term practice of the school’s mission begins to take shape. It’s important to have a leader that both sees the future as well as the need for policies in the present. Not all opening leaders can do this. Board members must realize that, as hard as it may be, the opening leader who worked so hard may not be able to take the school through the growth phase or may need significant training or coaching to adjust. In any case, if nothing is done, the growth phase will be extremely painful.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was originally published on www.examiner.com.

Local Leadership of Charter Schools is Imperative

I'm ashamed that a charter advocate says these things about local charter school boards:

I've tried for awhile to convince myself that the for-profit EMO's in the charter world are noble capitalists using new legislative opportunities to give parents school choice. But I can't reconcile that hope with the reality of the financial parasitism and disingenuous power grabs in evidence by some EMO's. If you don't believe me, check in with leaders of the ex-EMO charter schools around the country.

Now comes the case of Imagine Schools. In almost any analysis, Imagine is a top-tier EMO. They have more schools in more states than you can...imagine. But don't make the mistake of imagining those schools are for the students. As anyone can read in a memo distributed by CEO Dennis Bakke, the only reason Imagine schools have local boards is to comply with legislation. Not only does Imagine not value local leadership, but it intentionally seeks to weaken, undermine, and exclude strong board members. It is the position of CEO Bakke that a board exists to affirm and advise. "Imagine owns the school." If an authorizer won't approve an application without a strong board, then "so be it." Imagine wants a weak, compliant board.

This is heartbreaking. If any self-respecting board member would want to work with Imagine after reading this memo, they get what they deserve.

On the other hand, if you want a vibrant, responsive school board—look for leaders whose children attend the school. They will ask good questions, hold administrators accountable, give sacrificially of their time and treasure, and uphold the best traditions of independent governance. Even though I don't always agree with my board, I respect that they are the authentic representatives of our parent community. Boards and administrators should support and challenge each other or one of them is unnecessary. If an EMO supports training to strengthen and empower board members, then keep listening. Otherwise. Run. Fast.

Mountain Middle School seeks to serve students

A new middle school hoping to open in Durango in the Fall of 2010 comes up on its approval meeting with the Charter School Institute on November 17th. The school is being driven by local community members who want a more hands on project based learning method for students in the Durango area who would learn better in this hands on environment.

Animas High School opened this fall and was modeled after San Diego's High Tech High. Nancy Heleno was one of the founders and is passionate about project based learning.

This past Thursday,Ms. Heleno answered questions about the proposed middle school for a group of interested parents and community members. The school has received 124 non-binding agreements to enroll, which is slightly more than 10% of the Durango School District 9-R middle school enrollment.

Laine Gibson, the District's Chief Financial Officer, is concerned that the school will reduce the revenue going to the traditional schools in the district. As I've said before on this blog, this is one of the worst arguments against starting a charter school. If students exist in the district that would excel in the project based learning environment, and the district doesn't provide such an environment, then a charter school is a perfect solution to the problem.

Gibson's argument is common among school finance personnel, but rests on one of two assumptions. The first is that we need to make education most efficient. The problem, as Steven Covey noted in his Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, is that effectiveness is more important than efficiency. If you do something efficiently, but not effectively, you've really wasted time and money. The second false assumption is that somehow charter schools are stealing students from traditional schools. This can't be the case because the students do not belong to the district. They happen to live within the district's boundaries, but they do not belong to the district.

Given Gibson's past experience in District 49 in Falcon, Colorado, which has five charter schools, I highly doubt he rests on the second assumption. As a finance person, I'd guess that Gibson's primary concern is the issue of efficiency. Many of us finance people mistakenly believe that efficiency is the most important aspect of running a school or district. This is why finance people can't be the only decision makers in these situations.

Mountain Middle School has over 10% of the local middle school population intending to enroll. That is a large enough portion of the population believing that it will be served better in this new educational philosophy and method to justify a new school. So far no one has argued against the methods of instruction, especially as they are based on one of the most successful charter schools in the country. It only makes sense to give Mountain Middle School a chance to challenge and benefit those students who may not fit well into the traditional school system.

Online Education provides alternatives for students who need flexibility

Online education is on the rise. People have complained about lack of supervision. Some programs do not use certified teachers. There are all sorts of excuse that could stop districts and charter schools to support online education.

However, a great article on poststar.com tells many stories of students who have been successful in online programs. One student needed flexibility for music rehearsal. Without repeating the article, the point is that many students don't thrive in traditional sit on your seat and listen programs.

I've long argued that seat time (required by almost every state for its public schools) is irrelevant to success in education. While KIPP and other programs have shown that longer school days help many students, it doesn't mean that longer school days are better for all students. It also doesn't meant that those same students couldn't benefit from more time online.

Time does not equal better. Any educational model that measures success by seat time rather than results will fail.

I could dive into a discussion of educational method and the success of core knowledge and classical schools, but I'll restrain myself. For now, the only point to make is that many students thrive when they realize that the only measure of their education is...and this is scary...that they are actually learning.

I guess I feel so strongly about this because I was one of those students who five minutes into a math lecture understood every concept, but because of the wonderful discovery of mandatory seat time, I was not excused to go to something else. I had to sit through a 50 minute class. If I add up all of the time that I wasted in school due to mandatory seat time rather than the time that I needed, It would probably be 400 or more hours a year. That's 10 work weeks or close to a full quarter of school.

Online programs (if structured correctly) allow students to focus on what they are learning, not sitting in a classroom whether or not they need to be there.

GALS want to do good for girls in Colorado

There is a new school on the horizon in Denver Public School system. Girls Athletic Leadership School (GALS) leaders hope to have approval from DPS soon. As DPS has said that it looks at its schools as a portfolio, this new school hopes to expand that portfolio. When I say “new” school, I don’t merely mean new as in “opening soon. “ I mean that it is something different. How is it different? First, it’s the first single gender charter school in Colorado. It’s also the first single gender Expeditionary Learning school in the United States.

That’s a lot of firsts. Founder Elizabeth Wolfson is excited about this opportunity to expand DPS’s portfolio and “get past this approval phase and on to implementation.” She says, “At the end of the day, we want to serve the girls. It’s exciting to think about.”

GALS “envisions a world where all young women are given access to a personalized and holistic education that provides them the opportunity to access the skills, knowledge, and self-determination to succeed in college and to develop as leaders in their communities and the world.”

The school, if approved, will serve 6th to 12th grade girls using a rigorous Expeditionary Learning model. Expeditionary Learning is not a new model, and many have incorporated parts of it. For example, some aspects of 21st century education come from the expeditionary model. The focus is on student centered, practical education that is largely project based. GALS will be located in Central Denver and focus on parent and community involvement.

By defining itself as an “athletic” school, the leaders do not mean that every girl has to play a sport or be a great athlete. The focus will be on health and wellness, recognizing that every student is a person with a physical body that needs proper care so the student can flourish. The evidence shows that exercise and body movement stimulate cognitive achievement.

I met with Ms. Wolfson, Nina Safane (coordinator of the academic program), and Sharon Findley (a school designer for Expeditionary Learning) on Friday to discuss this new school and why they are so passionate about it. There are really two aspects of the school that excite them. First, it’s clear from research that girls discover their potential and learn how to succeed when in a single gender environment. Second, the Expeditionary Learning model that allows students to pursue their passions in a supervised environment with teachers as mentors who don’t do the thinking for students.

The school still has to be approved by the Denver Public Schools board before it can open in the fall of 2010. Assuming it opens, GALS will be an exciting addition to the Colorado charter school movement and to the development of teen girls into college bound women.

Teachers' union wants respect

Boulder Valley School District halted negotiations with the teachers' union because it believed they were at a stalemate. Now, a union leader has accused the district of not respecting it's members.

"I am here tonight because I am very frustrated with the lack of respect shown to the members I represent," all 17 Boulder Valley union members said, one by one. "I urge you to return to the negotiation and find a reasonable solution to the contract dispute. My members are simply asking that you help us reach a settlement that honors what we do for the students each day."

Three unions have banded together to demand higher pay, in an economy that is in the worst shape in decades. Everywhere I turn another business is closing its doors, another friend loses a job, or advertisements with deep discounts attempt to lure shoppers who aren't spending into stores. The unions continue to ignore this fact as well as the other costs to the district.

Teachers fail to mention that they still receive some of the most lucrative benefits of any profession. They ask for "professional" pay even though they do not want to be measured like professionals and have to compete. They want to continue to restrict access to the teaching profession. Many professionals are out of work. Unemployment in Colorado is at its highest in years. Perhaps if the teachers felt more of that pain, they'd be less inclined to ask for above average raises.

This "negotiation" has gone on for months with the district trying to go on with the business of educating students. As I've written before, and in other places, perhaps the district ought to pursue a non-exclusive relationship with its teachers' union and pursue waivers for all of its schools from having licensed faculty. Nearby Peak to Peak Charter School seems to be doing pretty well. In fact, three of the top high schools in the state are charter schools with no requirement for having licensed teachers.

When unions become unreasonable and begin throwing accusations such as "we aren't respected," perhaps we should tell them to take their toys and go home. The district bargained in good faith and made their best judgment based on what the district could afford. Last time I checked, the district had no handcuffed teachers to their desks to make them stay in their jobs. if they can do better elsewhere, then...

When union contracts and state laws prohibit more than qualified people from teaching, and support the likes of these demanding unions, maybe it's time for a change?

"Ideal" education system in Colorado?

Just like a color palette, a school system needs to recognize that there are a variety of skills, desires and needs out in the community. Recently, the CDE staff was asked to estimate the cost of an ideal system for Colorado. The price tag is approximately 50% greater than what is currently being spent.If this is ideal, then I guess that choice is not the trend in Colorado. As I review the key components, I see that most are pretty authoritarian and have little to do with focused strategic goals or needs of the consumers of education. If something is good for a portion of the population, then it's good for everyone. It's typical bureaucracy at work. It's a one-size-fits-all strategy that would cost lots of money and wouldn't work. It paints all children and families with the same color and ignores the spectrum of needs in Colorado. I'm a bit surprised because I've come to respect Dwight Jones and most of his ideas, but this can't be the ideal education for Colorado.

"What makes up that $2.8 billion? Here’s how Vody Herrmann, CDE school finance director, broke it down, if it were in place for the current school year:

• $1.2 billion – Bring current spending to national per-pupil average.
• $269.5 million – Raise teacher salaries to national average.
• $151 million – Institute full-day kindergarten for all students.
• $174.6 million – Provide half-day preschool for all 4-year-olds.
• $123.8 million – Pay for dual high school/college enrollment for one-third of 12th graders.
• $1.13 billion – Increase time in school by 20 percent.
• $74.6 million – Hike in categorical spending required by increased school time. (Categoricals are funds earmarked for transportation, special education and other specific programs.)
• $65.1 million – Extra kindergarten and preschool costs required by increased school time."

OK. So the most expensive item is based on the notion that Colorado ought to spend as much as the national average. No mention of what would improved or what the money would be spent on. There is no strategic plan here that addresses needs.

The second largest item is teacher pay. The argument is that Colorado needs good teachers. Do we have bad teachers? Is there strong evidence that higher pay gives us better teachers? What might be done to encourage better people to get into teaching? Could we open the market to more highly qualified teachers? Charter schools in Colorado normally pay less than other public schools, but don't seem to have huge problems finding good teachers.

Then there is the idea of full day kindergarten for all students. Never mind that many parents don't want or need full day kindergarten for their children. OK, education should be--eenie, meanie, minie, moe--blue. Who cares if there are kids who need yellow or red or berry blast.

Provide half-day pre-school for all 4 year-olds? Well, the argument against this is the same as the full day kindergarten. By the way, does this seem a bit like totalitarian education to anyone but me?

The dual credit money I can see, but that money should mostly come from money already being spend in the state college system, so it should be almost a wash at the state government level. This one I can agree with, but it shouldn't cost the state more money, it should cost less.

Now, the additional time in school is like the kindergarten and pre-school issue. What if your child would actually do better with less time in school?

The last two line items are "required" because of the increase in the other one color requirements.

What about facilities for all children, even those in charter schools? What about targeted strategic programs for those who need them, including Gifted and Talented as well as a boost for those who need it? I normally like things that come out of Dwight Jones' office, but this one is not well thought out. I use words like totalitarian, but can't believe that Jones and his office intended for me to think such things. However, that's the way it appears. I've been to Russia many times and seen the results and heard the stories of a monochrome was of structuring things. I don't think Colorado is monochrome.

I think someone has gotten to Dwight Jones with an agenda, and he needs to rethink it. I realize that this plan is hypothetical, but the fact that this is considered the ideal scares me. This is so far from what I want and need, that I wonder where consideration of choice and about education tailored to research and test data went. I thought the trend was toward providing education based on identified student needs. For example, it's been demonstrated that for children with involved parents, it's often better for them to spend the pre-school years at home. Why force all children into a classroom at age 4 if they don't need or want it? Why make all children, especially those with attention disorders, stay in class longer if they already excel?

I appreciate Dwight Jones and the leadership that he has shown, but this can't be his ideal plan for education in Colorado. If it is, I urge him to rethink the specific needs of kids and their families and not apply this monochromatic strategy to Colorado. Let each child show his or her true colors.

A Charter School Success: Ricardo Flores Magon services 80% English Language Learners

Ricardo Flores Magon Academy chose its name to honor a leader of Mexican descent who was not merely a change agent, but a change agent who used his intellect to succeed. The school seeks to develop students, largely of Mexican descent, into thinkers who are not restricted by their cultural heritage or limited economic means, but use their intellect and their culture to succeed in the broad context of society.

After three years of hard work, the initial third grade cohort has achieved some of the highest CSAP scores in the state. RFMA averages over 90% Free and Reduced Lunch students and over 80% are English Language Learners.

RFMA achieves these results with a longer than average school day that incorporates 200 minutes of literacy and 100 minutes of mathematical reasoning. It is the only K-8 school with a tennis academy. It also has chess instruction by chess professionals.

The school plans to track its alumni as they move into select high schools and colleges around the country. Teachers here are “rock stars” who teach with “uncompromising passion and accountability.”

To view the RFMA web site click here.

Life Cycles and Charter Schools: Application to Charter School Leadership

Charter schools can be different animals. They are large and small. They cover different grades: K-6, K-8, K-12, 6-8, 9-12 and a couple of other combinations. They vary from direct instruction to exploratory learning. They are urban and suburban. Some specialize and other are broad. Some provide college prep and some offer remedial courses. Some charter schools are started by parents or community groups. Others are started by Education Management Organizations.

Whatever the type, size or method in a charter school, all go through lifecycles. As Peter Hilts and I have outlined these in the past, the cycles are Planning, Opening, Growth, Stability, Stagnation, Decline, and then either Closure or Renewal. It is probably obvious that most schools want to take the path to renewal.

The problem is that this cycle isn’t always easily identified by charter school leaders. Moreover, most charter schools spend so much time in the Planning and Opening phases that it’s tough to move through the other phases smoothly. The frantic pace of starting a school often means that different functions of a school mature more quickly than others.

Even with all of the frantic pace and confusion, charter schools need to be aware of the dysfunction that will occur if they do not recognize some of the subtle changes that happen between Opening and Growth.

Everyone knows the Planning phase. Especially if it is a small community group, three or four people do everything. They apply for grants, organize finances, pay bills—everything. They start recruiting students. They do all of the marketing. They do all of the hiring. Often these founders are working outside of their areas of expertise.

Then after two years of frantic work by this small group, the opening day comes. Nothing happens as planned so you make due. People fill in where needed. Forgotten supplies are ignored as best as possible. Then the board meeting comes, and no one ever thought to order a matching set of adult sized chairs. Tables are arranged in some semblance of order. At this point, leadership is both a huge challenge, and yet simple—get things done.

The first year or two may look like this. Hiring may be done based on who knows the founders. Employees may not be completely capable of doing their jobs. Sometimes schools have issues with compliance. Sometimes they just are inefficient. Everything gets done at the last minute. Everyone needs to be trained, especially if the school has its own teaching methods or has hired inexperienced teachers.

However, this can’t go on forever. Everyone knows it. Soon the school, while still growing, begins to have some semblance of order. The leader has to slow down and begin to look at the future, evaluate personnel. All sorts of things begin to happen organically that cause a reflective leader and board to ask themselves: What is next? Or Do we still have the right leader?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was originally written for:

www.examiner.com

Five Projects for Prospective Charter School Leaders

DU, in partnership with Get Smart Schools is starting a program for charter school leaders, and recently Harvard announced what looks to be a great partnership to advance innovative school leadership. As a veteran of a few charter school years, I’d suggest either of these programs could prepare their students well if they assigned the following five projects:

These are based on five basic demands:

• You must work well with your board, receiving and providing feedback and direction.
• You must work well with staff, especially in meeting settings.
• You must help teachers develop into better teachers.
• You must maintain healthy relationships with stakeholders, even though you will often have to say, “no”.
• You must not neglect your own growth and development. Without fresh learning you will burn out.

1. Attend three school board meetings: One TPS, one newly opened charter, and one veteran charter. Analyze the differences in topics and board process. Draft a set of principles for good board process and governance.
2. Attend a staff meeting at each level (elementary, middle, high school) preferably early in the year. Plot how much time is spent addressing student needs versus external mandates, staff development, and “housekeeping nuts & bolts.” Craft an agenda template for an effective and engaging 90-minute staff meeting.
3. Observe a teacher for one class session. Using the evaluation form of the school, complete a written observation for that teacher. Compare your evaluation to a real (redacted) evaluation provided by the school administrator. Note any differences in depth, emphasis, and the ratio of positive to negative feedback. Revise either your evaluation, or the evaluation provided by the school and submit.
4. Interview at least two parents who have had requests denied. The content of the request is irrelevant, the key is that the school said “no” to the parent. Analyze the parent’s experience of having a request declined. Interview the relevant teacher or administrator. Compare the two experiences. Draft guidelines for communicating refusal to stakeholders.
5. Complete a self-assessment of your professional experience, dispositions, and needed growth. Propose a 3-5 year plan for your personal professional development. Consider time, financial, workload and access constraints.

There are easily dozens of other areas of expertise you will need to develop. You must become conversant with legal, financial, psychological, pedagogical, statutory, mechanical, medical, meteorological, and spiritual phenomena to name a few. You will learn the vocabulary, processes, and expectations of dozens of domains. To lead a charter school, you must be a lifelong learner—it’s a survival strategy. Enjoy!

Budget cuts, lay-offs, and union raises

Can someone explain to me what is going on in Boulder Valley School District?

Many charter schools have waivers that allow them to hire non-certified teachers. Perhaps BVSD ought to do the same thing with the Colorado Department of Education.

In this past year the economy entered what has been called a "crisis." While my family has been pretty fortunate, unemployment rates are higher than they have been in a long time. 2009 will likely end with deflation, not inflation. The stock market, even after going up about 50% since the market low, is down about 25% from the market high just a little over a year ago. Many charter schools and school districts froze salaries. Yes, school districts even froze salaries.

However, in BVSD, the board voted on a budget that increased teacher salaries 2.4%. This is well above the average increase in Colorado. A normal person would think that teachers would be elated that their district supported them so well. However, unions do strange things to normal people. For some reason, the teachers union in BVSD is living in a vacuum. They obviously don't read the papers. I suppose that is not very courteous. I suppose a more generous explanation is that they are just plain selfish. Who knows?

The amazing thing is that the fight is still going on. With Governor Ritter, even today, talking about the major difficulties in the budget for 2010-11 (the Colorado Legislative Council Staff recently released their forecast that there could be a $1 billion shortfall in the general fund if nothing changes), these teachers continue to press their unreasonable and unwarranted agenda.

In the book Getting to Yes, we learn about good negotiating--on the merits. Obviously, teachers aren't required to read business books.

If this is the kind of attitude that unions encourage, I'm glad my kids are not in BVSD. I'm glad the they go to a charter school where teachers enjoy their job and do a great job because they love to teach. I am glad that my school can hire teachers who have taught at the college level, who have taught in private schools for years, who have bachelors degrees in their fields and years of practical experience in the subject.

Unions are out for the unions. We have known that for years. This is just one more obvious example.

Radical Charter School

What do you all think about this idea for a charter school that I've been brainstorming?

• ages 13-21
• combination of jr. hi, hi school and college courses (through dual enrollment)
• student can take as little time or as much time as they want as long as they at least finish high school by age 21 with the possibility of finishing a bachelor's degree along the way.
  
• Most courses are simply accomplished by showing results.
  
• Most courses involve some sort of mentoring and/or internship
• Many courses have an online component
• Courses is relative. Some courses my have as little as once a week attendance requirements.
• recruit as many local businesses as possible to have people guest lecture or provide internships
• internships can be full time and last as much as one full year (twelve months)
• School is year round.

OK. So, aside from the fact that this would have to go through (probably not over) a number of hurdles and is probably not in compliance with most states' laws, what is wrong with it? I think it's a brilliant idea as do many of my entrepreneurial friends who felt "stuck" with making a decision at age 18 and felt like they were in a student mill all the way through junior high and high school.

I could make more arguments, but I want to hear your opinions first.

Charter vs. Public Schools??????

The reason for the question marks is that I'm confused. I seem to stumble on an article or letter every couple of days comparing charter schools to public schools or suggesting that a charter school is a private school. It's distressing because most of the time, the writer is not simply any person off the street. The writer is often an education writer or else a member of a school board.

The other day I came across a Letter from a school committee member titled "Charter vs. public schools: Time to level the playing field."

So, I'm distressed on two points. The first is that this Peabody School Committee member doesn't seem to know that a charter school IS a public school.

The second is that he doesn't see to recognize that it's not charters that have the field tipped in their favor.

The funny thing is that he says in his fifteen years on the school committee (so he's not a newbie) he has seen "a trend against public education." As charter schools are public schools, their existence or expansion cannot be seen as a "trend against public education." It can be seen in the way that public education is provided.

His letter is largely about charter schools receiving funding for students in ways that allow them to take Special Education funds and other such programmatic funds from other public schools. In his area charter schools do not have the same proportion of Special Education or low income students as surrounding schools.

He cites a number of other things that charter schools don't have to deal with--many of which could be taken care of by better charter agreements.

He also ignores the fact that charter schools are grossly underfunded when it comes to facilities, and that facilities are much more expensive than Special Education costs. I'd trade facilities revenue (through bonding paid for by the taxpayers) for Special Education revenue any day.

While saying he has nothing against charter schools, he later says that charter schools "start off on third base and have us believe they've hit a triple." If that's not insulting, I'm not sure what is. He ignores all of the great accomplishments that charter schools have made in his community.

There are other issues that I take with his letter, but the point is that until we can discuss the real issues and come to the table understanding that charter schools are public schools, we can't resolve the other issues. If we want to level the playing field then we'll need to really level the playing field and stop considering charter schools the outcasts and bring them into the fold completely.

If you want a fair comparison, the you have to be fair with all of the variables, not just the ones that non-charter school educators choose.

Time for Charter Schools on the Radio

There is a new radio program all about charter schools. If you can't hear the program, there is always the podcast. This afternoon at 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time, Sandro Lanni of Charter School Management Corporation will be interviewed. There have already been guests such as Eric Premack, Director of the Charter Schools Development Center.

Dennis Snyder is the host of internet radio program. Snyder is a long time high school football coach and charter school director. The goal of the show is to get the word out on the basics of charter schools as well as issues of charter school law and finance.

Check it out. If you can't listen to the show, you can download the podcast.