Tag Archives: Colorado

What Bellwether Is Watching Out For in Election 2020

That there’s a lot at stake in this election is obvious. And there is a lot at stake for schools even as they’ve been mostly an afterthought on the campaign trail. There are immediate questions about COVID-19 relief and, going forward, big questions for early education, higher education, assessment, accountability, and choice policies for K-12 schools. 

This is nothing new: Bellwether has an entire genre of blog posts about how little education gets talked about during presidential debates, vice presidential debates, State of the Union addresses, and other federal policy conversations. And while single-issue education voters may not be unicorns, they are pretty rare.  

At Bellwether we track the election and what it means for clients, and we pay attention to the context and conditions schools operate in. Our team is united by a shared mission of improving life and education outcomes for underserved students, but we differ about how best to do that — and, by extension, about politics. But like everyone, we are paying close attention this year.

Here’s some of what we are watching for: Continue reading

How Do We Incentivize Charter Authorizers to Approve More High-Quality Alternative Schools? A Q&A With Colorado’s Antonio Parés.

Antonio Parés headshot via Twitter

Antonio Parés via Twitter

“Alternative education” is a catch-all term used to describe education programs for students who have not been well-served by traditional classroom environments. It can refer to computer-based rapid credit accrual opportunities, supportive programs for students who are pregnant or parenting, intensive English-language programs for students who have come to the United States with substantial education histories in another language, “second chance” placements for students expelled from traditional public schools, and everything in between. Precise definitions vary by state and school district.

While traditional public school districts have historically offered these alternative programs for their students, more and more state or local charter schools are beginning to offer similar programs. Charter statutes often allow the flexibility that makes room for innovation, which is needed to operate programs that meet the specific needs of some of our most vulnerable students. Yet ensuring appropriate accountability for alternative charter schools — crucial to fulfilling the other side of the autonomy-for-accountability bargain — has proven challenging.

Forward-thinking charter authorizers are contemplating the policies and institutional practices that create strong authorizing and accountability incentives for alternative programs. The right mix of flexibility, autonomy, rigor, and relevance can both ensure that authorizers do not just enable the existence of more alternative schools but that the schools they authorize provide the highest quality programs that best meet the needs of the students they serve. Good authorizing practices can also prevent schools that provide alternative programs from simply relaxing their standards and becoming a catch basin for low performing students.

A primary challenge for authorizers is that accountability metrics typically used to measure the performance of charter schools — such as student achievement or growth on state standardized assessments, student attendance, and four-year graduation rates — may not accurately apply. Alternative charter schools often serve students who enter with unique educational and life challenges or who are already far below grade level because of gaps in their prior schooling. Applying these measures rigidly can create disincentives for operators to open, or authorizers to approve, alternative school models. Conversely, some states create loopholes that allow alternative schools and their authorizers to evade accountability altogether. Some intrepid authorizers have invested significant time and resources in developing fair and accurate ways to measure the performance of diverse alternative schools, however, state laws and regulations do not always align with such approaches.

Colorado has begun a process of convening a cross-agency task force of leaders, experts, and policymakers to modify its authorizing system by improving the rigor and relevance of performance metrics for the state’s alternative education campuses (AECs). 

Antonio Parés, a partner at the Donnell-Kay Foundation, is a board member of the Colorado Charter School Institute (CSI), which convened the AEC task force. CSI is Colorado’s only statewide charter school authorizer, and it currently authorizes 39 schools serving over 17,500 PK-12 students across the state. We recently caught up with Antonio to talk about the unique needs of AECs and what that means for authorizers and state education policy.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You’ve been working with a task force in Colorado to improve the ways that the state holds charter authorizers accountable for the success of their alternative education campuses. Can you tell us about that process and the challenges you’re facing?

Every year or two, CSI works with our alternative education campuses to identify “alternative measurements” for each or all of the schools. Alternative measurements include student perception surveys, in-house assessments such as NWEA or MAPS, or alternative post-secondary paths. CSI convened a statewide taskforce to review and collaborate on best practices when it comes to accountability measurements and outcomes for our alternative education campuses, schools typically serving under-credited and at-risk students. We were trying — and continue to try — to balance both the unique nature of each campus and their student population with the need for consistent, longitudinal, and comparable data points. Our goal was — and continues to be — to develop the best performance metrics and frameworks for every school. Continue reading

Education Needs Moonshots… and Funders to Pay for Them

Photo of NASA astronaut on the moon

Photo via NASA

Everything you know about teaching, schools, governance, funding, accountability, advocacy, and credentialing is now in question. Under the microscope. Being parsed, decoupled, reconfigured, increased, decreased, or simply thrown on the trash heap for future education historians to pick up and examine.

Behind this creative destruction is ReSchool Colorado, a small group at the Donnell-Kay Foundation in Denver completely rethinking what a state-wide education system is and what it could look like.

I was introduced to ReSchool through an invitation from the Donnell-Kay Foundation to spend two days in Denver with a diverse group of educators, researchers, business and system leaders to rethink education governance top to bottom. [The Donnell-Kay Foundation does not currently fund Bellwether’s work.]

Just when I was beginning to worry that we were simply indulging in an interesting but impractical thought experiment, I was delighted to learn that ReSchool intends to support prototypes for some of their ideas and systems in 2016 to prove the hypothesis that starting over is a better strategy than fixing the current moribund system. As a result, ReSchool is pushing in a lot of different directions to cast a vision for a state-wide cradle through career education system that is more equitable, effective, and efficient. The audaciousness of the effort puts ReSchool alongside the Minerva Project, perhaps the only other moonshot in education today.

Big, forward-thinking projects like these are important. In a philanthropic gestalt dominated by strategic giving, we need more channels to create audacious ideas and ambitious initiatives to rival the enormous harm that the opportunity gap is doing to our kids and society.

The Donnell-Kay Foundation should be commended for creating one such channel, but the education sector needs other funders to get beyond the two deeply embedded beliefs that keep them limited in number and impact.

  • Any use of funds that doesn’t directly impact kids is wasteful.
  • Anyone not working to improve the situation for students in school right now isn’t doing real work.

But looking at ReSchool as a lost opportunity to invest talent or money in something more immediate is exactly the short-sighted and narrow view that chains the education sector to incremental improvements.

Investments in efforts like ReSchool exist in a different category than expanding a successful school model or expanding a high-quality teacher pipeline. Although they may yield some lessons in the short-turn, moonshots provide benefits far beyond immediate impact. They exist to generate novel solutions outside of the rigid constraints within which most of us work. They clear the way for innovators to innovate the way icebreakers create a channel where there wasn’t one before so ships can follow. They take on controversial topics head on so practitioners don’t have to. They familiarize people to foreign ideas so barriers are minimized when they’re ready for implementation.

Investments in immediate interventions are important and I’m not proposing funders abandon them. Instead, I think the sector would benefit from fostering new lines of thinking unencumbered by incrementalism and convention.

To do this, we need forward-thinking funders with a high tolerance for risk, strong leadership, smart design, and sustained fortitude to battle the inertia of conventional thinking. ReSchool Colorado shows us that this is possible.