Open Enrollment in Colorado

Apparently, this week was National School Choice Week. In Colorado, this was celebrated and promoted in Castle Rock with the "Restoring American Exceptionalism" event put on by Hugh Hewitt and featuring consultant Dick Morris.

Reports from the event revealed the presentations to be a not remotely subtle attack on teacher's unions and public education in general. That's not surprising considering the location. Castle Rock is in Douglas County, one of the most affluent and conservative parts of the country, as well as the location of school board approved private school voucher program that was halted at the start of this year by the courts. Strangely, the event was introduced as "not a political evening" because it was simply about parents being able to make the best choice for their kids.

Well, clearly, a call to weaken teacher associations and provide vouchers to allocate public funds to private religious schools is, in fact, a political evening. But that's OK. School choice is an issue that is timely and important and must be resolved in a prudent and effective manner. And that process is clearly in place in Colorado.

The prudent answer is, obviously, open enrollment policies as a state law.

In Colorado, a student is allowed to enroll in any school he wants as long as seats are available. This condition has been key in the rise of charter schools in the state, and made it a pioneer in charter and magnet education. The caveats are that the school must be "open," as in not at capacity for seating and staff, and if the school is outside the kid's "home school" he is responsible for transportation. There are some hurdles, bussing being a big one. In urban areas, students have a lot of access to public transportation. In rural areas, not so much. And, of course, Colorado's budget is strained and public transportation is taking a hit.

Additionally, some of the top schools are "closed," meaning their neighborhood constituents already take up the seats. My school - Cherry Creek High School - is one of the top schools in the state, and it's located in a rather affluent area. However, at 3600 kids, it's at capacity, and students are not allowed to "choice in." That's a condition that is troubling for some.

Ultimately, though, open enrollment is the perfect compromise solution for school choice advocates and public school defenders. It allows for freedom while maintaining a core of neighborhood schools and seeking to improve them. My long-standing opinion of education reform is that our policies should be "whatever works."

And open enrollment works.

More KIPP, Charter, & Motivation

After watching the issue of charter schools and KIPP develop around Denver for the past eight years, I was intrigued by the recent exchange in the Washington Post between Jay Mathews and Valerie about KIPP retention rates. Conceding the success of KIPP and Green Dot and HCZ, I have always been an advocate of the "whatever works" approach to reform of failing - primarily urban - schools. Yet, remembering KIPP's retreat from the Cole Middle School neighborhood in Denver - even as another KIPP school had operated in successfully in Denver since 2003 - I would argue the primary factor in success still centers on student/parent motivations and expectations.

Clearly, the greatest evidence for success in charters - especially KIPP - is the self-selecting model of students and families committed to achievement at all costs. That includes the nine-hour days, mandatory summer programs, student contracts, parental requirements, etc. And, we can't discount the social services - nutrition, health care, counseling, baby-sitting - that are integral to the success at HCZ. These are all necessary to bring struggling students back to the standard expectations. Clearly, KIPP doesn't directly cherry-pick students - but the culture and expectations of the school is a de facto cherry picking scenario - and it is one that I support. Certainly, these kids need these high expectations and they need a rigid and rigorous environment that expects - even demands - that they meet them.

Sadly, this discussion among teacher critics too often ignores all the supplemental assistance and the role of student motivation as the charter school leaders often say they simply require the right to hire and fire teachers at will. Geoffery Canada is sadly guilty of this - going on the public stage to tout his model and making his comments all about "firing bad teachers" and rarely about all the student/family assistance he provides. The KIPP that failed in Denver never had the buy-in from the community - thus KIPP's explanation about teachers seems rather ambiguous and unverifiable.

Cole is in the absolute poorest most socially dysfunctional area in Denver - it is textbook case for why communities and neighborhood schools fail. All the ills are in abundance. The failure of the KIPP intervention was primarily because they could not force the changes and expectations on a whole community that was not choosing their model. Despite the school's administration of KIPP principles, the students did not follow their lead. Truancy and discipline problems remained and student achievement made no movement at all. In response, KIPP backed out of the school in a very short time. KIPP may argue that they couldn't find "effective leaders committed to the model," but the reality is they couldn't force an entire school of kids, and their parents, to commit to their model.

The entire theory of charter reform is that if neighborhood schools reformed around KIPP-style ideas, and dedicated teachers implement the philosophy, it will change the culture of the school. That was simply not the case at Cole. That, however, overlooks the fact that a percentage of kids in that neighborhood use "open enrollment" and leave the Cole neighborhood for other schools, including the KIPP Peak Academy and the Denver School of Science and Technology. That is, in fact, what many kids in that neighborhood have done. The ones who didn't remained at Cole - now closed completely - and they were the ones on whom the KIPP experiment made no impact.

Clearly, serious education reformers must consider the importance of student motivation and the self-selecting impact that leads to success in the 20% of charter schools that actually outperform neighborhood schools. I believe Colorado is in a pretty good position with its statewide rule of "open enrollment" and its promotion of charter schools. However, I'm not naive enough to see either as a panacea for larger social ills.

Can Charters Save Us?

Time Magazine asks the "profound" question, "Can Charter Execs Turn Around Failing Public Schools?" Of course, this is nowhere near a yes/no question, as the past twenty years have shown that some charters can dramatically improve student achievement, while others perform as poorly - and at times worse, with cases of abuse and corruption - as the neighborhood schools they were created to oppose.

As I've noted before, I think Colorado's model of open enrollment and generous support of charters is the best approach to the issue of school reform, especially in relation to the issue of "school choice." The issue with charters now, is not whether they can create a new "start-up" and provide an alternative for kids, but actually go into failing schools and improve them as is by applying their "charter model" to an existing student population.

Remains to be seen.

Charters Avoiding Special Needs

Interesting development on the "charter-school" front, as the Denver Post reports:

Colorado charter schools on average enroll fewer students with disabilities than noncharters — lending weight to long-held criticism of the publicly funded schools that are supposed to serve everyone.

While I have advocated Colorado's focus on "open enrollment" and charter schools as the best possible approach to reform, the long-held criticism that charters succeed simply by cherry-picking the best students away from neighborhood schools is definitely still a viable criticism. Even in Colorado, where the law states allegedly states there can be no conditions put on acceptance, it's obviously true.

Is this the problem that critics make it out to be?  Does it diminish the arguments of "choice" advocates for competition improving schools?  Does the "choice" movement simply ensure that some children will be "left behind"?

Charter Growth in Colorado

Colorado charter schools continue to grow — adding schools, students and more diversity, according to a study released Tuesday by the Colorado Department of Education.

"It's fascinating to see as time goes on, statistics and laws of nature take over and charters end up looking like everyone else," said Jim Griffin, president of the Colorado League of Charter Schools.

As I've noted before, in Colorado, open enrollment and the growth of charters is the preferred model. This is preferable to a general statewide voucher system which is not needed or desired because for at least three quarters of families, the neighborhood school is preferable, and people move into neighborhoods for the schools. Thus, a voucher system isn't necessary, nor in demand, though I would concede that some voucher advocates want the option of private schools, and that concern should be addressed.

It's also important to remember there is regular opposition from the communities of struggling schools when districts attempt to close them. Thus, the support for the neighborhood model is still high. I applaud the growth of charter schools as well, and I will continue to support the system of choice that exists in Colorado.

Principals Make the Difference

According to the Denver Post, Principal's persistence sends Lincoln High grad rate soaring. At Lincoln High School - of the notoriously struggling Denver Public Schools - the turnaround rate in dropouts to college applications has been impressive, and:

Part of the reason for the rebound is the school's principal — Antonio Esquibel, a Lincoln alum who grew up about half-mile from Lincoln. He has made it his mission to change the culture for the Lancers. Esquibel has borrowed techniques from successful charter schools, putting an emphasis on attendance, credit recovery and college readiness.

Esquibel has set clear expectations, from attendance to grades, and his enforcement of this pro-academic culture at his school is fundamental to its success. Granted, there is a long way to go. Though the message is clear. A culture of learning is integral to the success of a school community, and that culture is set by the administration.

Got a problem with the school? Start at the top. It's no different than in sports. Failing teams fire their coaches, and successful teams result from strong leadership.

Too Many Charters in North Denver

In moves toward school reform, I tend to believe choices such as charter schools and open enrollment are the most feasible and effective ways to bring about change. Vouchers are a trickier issue, as evidenced by the spat in Washington, D.C. Critics of vouchers have reasonably argued that districts and communities should focus on fixing the existing schools, rather than transferring motivated students out and, obviously, "leaving some child behind." In North Denver, however, parents and voters are expressing skepticism of the charter movement, and like many public school supporters pushing the district to fix the neighborhood schools. According to the Denver Post:

Parents and community members in northwest Denver implored school district officials Tuesday to fix their neighborhood schools and were skeptical about a plan to add more charter schools. "Thirty-six percent of the schools are not neighborhood schools now," said Loralie Cole, whose daughter will enter Denver Public Schools next fall. "We have a lot of choice already."

It's an interesting discussion, and relevant to the story in the LA Times about the Green Dot charter schools and the organizers urging parents to call for a revolution. Joanne featured this story with a link to the Times piece. One of the more insightful comments on this issue came form a parent in North Denver:

"New schools and charters are a great choice," said Ricardo Martinez, co-director of Padres y Jovenes Unidos, a community advocacy group. "But we want that kind of excellence at all of our schools. "
"Parents are urged to demand more from ... schools," reports the Times. That says a mouthful, doesn't it.

Problems with Charter Results

David Brooks recent praise of the "Harlem Miracle" is drawing some criticism. Apparently, some think the success of Geoffery Canada's Harlem Children's Zone and Promise Academy is not as impressive as Brooks claims, or at least the scores on standardized tests aren't. Joanne's site has some critical comments like this one from Aaron Pallas on the Gotham School:

http://gothamschools.org/2009/05/08/just-how-gullible-is-david-brooks/

There is also some excellent, and extensive analysis and comments from Corey at Thoughts on Education Policy:

http://www.edpolicythoughts.com/2009/05/sunday-commentary-sale-on-snake-oil-at.html#links

My feelings on charters generally fall in the "whatever works" category, though it appears the judgment of that is equally complex. If Brooks' piece manages to generate some discussion, and it can move at the policy level beyond the soundbites accurately criticized by Corey, then we may be getting somewhere.