We could do more for less if we'd invest in teacher training and accountability

...according to Bill Gates in an interesting piece from the Washington Post:

Compared with the countries that outperform us in education, we do very little to measure, develop and reward excellent teaching. We have been expecting teachers to be effective without giving them feedback and training.

To flip the curve, we have to identify great teachers, find out what makes them so effective and transfer those skills to others so more students can enjoy top teachers and high achievement.

The value of measuring effectiveness is clear when you compare teachers to members of other professions - farmers, engineers, computer programmers, even athletes. These professionals are more advanced than their predecessors - because they have clear indicators of excellence, their success depends on performance and they eagerly learn from the best.

The same advances haven't been made in teaching because we haven't built a system to measure and promote excellence. Instead, we have poured money into proxies, things we hoped would have an impact on student achievement. The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It's reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that's not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement.

Another standard feature of school budgets is a bump in pay for advanced degrees. Such raises have almost no impact on achievement, but every year they cost $15 billion that would help students more if spent in other ways.

Read the whole thing.

Innovation keeps coming

Despite being funded lower than traditional public schools, and having to put up with regular threats and political maneuvers designed to frustrate the reform that charters represent, our movement continues to bring innovative solutions to the education system. The charter school movement does this because districts don't.

They could. Utah has a method for existing district schools to convert to charters. Even in the absence of that, districts are already empowered to try innovative approaches like site-based management, new teaching methods, uniforms, new technology, pilot curriculum programs, and almost anything else. What keeps that from happening? Bureaucratic inertia.

So, the charter world operates outside that framework to incentivize new and innovative ideas that would never be implemented in the calcified and monopolistic traditional system.

Alianza Academy is a case in point. (I serve on the school's board.)

Rather than a school that is exclusively on the Web or in a traditional classroom, Alianza Academy is testing a hybrid, the first of its kind in Utah. Every student will have access to a computer or digital tablet, but all instruction will take place during a regular school day on four separate campuses with the assistance of learning coaches and certified teachers. Alianza hopes the hybrid model will help diminish the persistent achievement gaps between affluent and economically disadvantaged students and whites and minorities.

Charter student funding comes down to this

Are charter school students the second-class citizens of public education?

If the answer to that question is yes, if the taxpayer money authorized by the legislature and collected by districts for the education of students belongs to the government instead of the taxpayers who pay it and the children whom it should educate, then the status quo is acceptable. If districts that have no charter schools should pay to reduce class size in districts with thousands of students in charters because parents are fed up with the mediocrity at their neighborhood school, then the status quo is acceptable.

If not, if taxpayers want to put their hard-earned dollars into a more efficient model, if charter students have the same call for the support of their education, if money that taxpayers commit to education should actually go to the schools that educate the students, then HB313 must pass.

HB313 is based on the following principles:

• The legislature authorized school districts to levy property taxes to educate students, not to maintain a local school bureaucracy. Tax dollars don't belong to a district, or to a charter school. They belong to taxpayers and the students they are intended to educate.
• A student who chooses a charter school has the same value to taxpayers and the same rights to taxpayer support as a student who chooses a traditional district school.
• When districts make decisions and policies and offer an educational product that creates large enough dissatisfaction among parents that thousands of families leave that situation for a better fit at a charter school, the bill shouldn't be paid by taxpayers where the local district has the unanimous support of its families and students.

This issue, despite last year's promise from the Governor that he would shepherd a solution through and ensure that it was solved early in the legislative session, is now creating controversy in the last days of it. The controversy has no merit, unless you believe that taxpayers fund a system instead of the education of children, and that charter school students are indeed the second-class citizens of public education who don't deserve full support of taxpayers.

Who would admit to believing that?

Newly released bill eliminates almost all state funding programs

...in favor of a single funding line that includes all state funding, flowing to schools and districts based on enrollment, and then up to them on how funding is allocated. The bill is HB123 by Ken Sumsion.

I've worked for this concept for a long time. This bill is a bold idea. Some things need to change in it before it passes (for example, this bill would fund kindergarten the same as eighth grade, rather than at half funding), needs time for the funding amounts and changes to be vetted by those it affects, and of course needs time to build consensus on the concept.

And I hope that happens over the interim period, because the concept (simplified funding and transparency, more dollars for education, increased local control, smaller administrative burden) is awesome.

State tax collections higher than projected

"After years of red ink and spending cuts, state tax projections have surged by an additional $47 million," says the Trib.

"The $47 million increase means lawmakers have a total of $263 million they could use to restore programs that have been stripped down."

If this trend continues, it ought to be a perfectly passable year for schools.

Key lawmakers address charter schools

Tuesday night, at a specially scheduled meeting of the Utah Association of Public Charter Schools, the Majority Whip of the Utah House and the Utah Senate, along with the chair of the public appropriations committee, told charter school leaders that "tax dollars don't belong to a charter school, and they don't belong to a district, they belong to the students."

It may not sound controversial to charter school folks to hear that taxpayer money belongs to taxpayers, but the political reality is different.

Districts certainly believe that the taxes they collect belong to them to use as they see fit. They have been persuasive over the years, and many lawmakers believe it, too. More may not believe it, but vote that way because of education establishment power and political threats.

It will be quite a lift and a huge success if we can finally enact in statute these principles:

• Charter school students are not second-class citizens of public education. The education of charter school students has as much value to taxpayers as for students who attend district schools.
• Charter school funding should be from a stable and ongoing funding source, so that parents who want a charter school education for their children aren't kept out by arbitrary caps.

Charter news briefs

Indiana:

A bill that would encourage more charter schools in Indiana is picking up steam in the statehouse...but it's also getting heat from teachers.

In Evansville Saturday, legislators and educators got together to talk about the good and the bad of the bill.

At the statehouse last week, anger over Governor Mitch Daniels' education reform, which some teachers say puts too much emphasis on charter schools.
Governor Daniels' proposed plan makes it easier for communities to start them...and easier for public school kids to make the switch.

A Texas charter school founder convinces a Dallas editorial columnist that charter caps should be removed.

In California, particularly in Los Angeles, more and more district schools are seeking to escape bureaucratic rules by becoming charters.

APA gets national writeup

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11007678/1/a-charter-schools-successful-system-innovators.html

Educational associations and unions commonly cite three reasons: ( 1) Students in the best schools are offspring of more intelligent parents; (2) The best schools have better facilities and equipment (e.g., library, lab equipment, computers); and (3) the best schools have higher paid, and therefore, better teachers.

I recently visited a high-performing charter school to try to understand what accounts for its success. I found that none of the three reasons was valid. This school's extraordinary performance was driven by a highly disciplined educational system. The system was reinforced by a high performance culture.

American Preparatory Academy (APA) runs two charter schools in the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. Founded in 2003, APA operates two campuses in Utah -- one in Draper and another in West Valley.

Today, APA test scores far exceed state averages in every academic subject in every grade. For example: fifth grade math - 95% (APA) vs. 73% (state average), fifth grade science - 100% vs. 73% and fifth grade language arts - 95% vs. 67%. Whether comparing to state averages or to public schools in the same neighborhood, it's not even close.

APA's success is not from more intelligent students. As a charter school, tuition is free and students are accepted by lottery. It's not from more funding. APA receives $500 less per student from the state than traditional Utah public schools. And it's not from higher paid teachers.

When compared to their Utah public school peers, APA teachers are younger, less experienced, have fewer education degrees and are paid 16% less than union teachers. Educators typically define "professional capabilities" by advanced degrees and years of teaching experience. But if learning is the measure of success, degrees and experience may not be the best predictors. APA's young teachers, some without education degrees, are blowing away experienced teachers with master's degrees. Teacher's unions don't like APA.

A sign of positive change

Rep. Keith Grover's "School District Leave Policies"--HB183 isn't a charter school bill. To my knowledge, no charter school pays the salary of a union employee for performing union duties. Most districts don't either. But, some school districts use taxpayer funds to do just that--pay the salaries of employees on leave from the district to perform work for the teachers' union. As a charter school guy, I'm glad we don't have such nonsense. As a taxpayer, I'm offended that my money would be wasted in such a counter productive way.

This bill has been around for three year and has enjoyed broad support publicly--even the Tribune has editorialized in favor of it. Yet, it's never made it out of committee, due to union muscle and influence. This year, without much fanfare in the public, the bill passed the House Education Committee 10-3.

Even though there's no direct impact to charter schools, this is a sign of a changing tide coming our direction on education reform.

For the first time in several years

...there is higher than anticipated revenue growth in state budgets. Could be $150 million this year.

Annual charter school report released

The most interesting part is this graphic, showing charter enrollment growth since the first schools opened in 1999.

Whole report here.

Charter Board reform bill passes Senate unanimously

SB140, which would give charter schools more influence in the Charter Board member nominating process, passed with unanimous support in the Senate.

The State Board of Education, after a discussion with the Charter School Board, took a formal position against this bill, but it's hard to see any effect that had on the vote. I'm not surprised about such a position, because it upsets the apple cart they've gotten used to and figured how to game.

There are currently no members of the State Charter Board that have experience working to establish or working in a charter school, so there's an absence of relevant experience with how their rules and regulations will impact school operation. It's nice to have a lawyer, an online educator, and some finance people on the board, but they are missing a critical piece.

And that's in violation of the spirit of current law, so that's why the law needs to be changed. Today, the law requires that three of the board's seven members be "nominated by Utah's charter schools." None are.

This bill empowers charter schools, working through organizations that represent their interests, to ensure that the law is followed, and that Charter Board members understand schools and have "demonstrated dedication to the purposes of charter schools."

If the current Board or the State Board of Education think this law is unnecessary, I'd love to know how each of the seven current members have demonstrated such dedication and were nominated by Utah's charter schools, as the current law requires.

In the absence of any such evidence, the law clearly needs to be strengthened.

Is online education the future?

Don't know that yet, but it sure is getting a lot of attention in the present. Utah, if SB65 passes, Utah would be the nation's leader in making online education more integrated and a viable option for any student at any time. We've been getting national attention for this robust move into enhancing education through technology.

The best part of SB65? Schools or online providers would not be fully paid until after students have successfully completed the course. This could be a model of how to use incentives for results, instead of for inputs. What a value for taxpayers!

Can you create new reporting standards without adding to the cost of adminisration?

No.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Regarding the new finance metrics that the State Charter School Board is considering (or has already decided, depending on who's talking) for Utah's schools, it is probably good for schools in heavy financial straits to focus more administratively on their finances.

But the standards have the following problems that create an unnecessary administrative and bureaucratic burden on all schools:

• They measure the wrong things
• They set standards inconsistent with the stated purpose

Statute gives the Board the authority to hold schools accountable to Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, but the framework includes standards (like enrollment future-predicting) that are outside that scope. By so doing, it creates additional work for schools that have no financial shortcomings, but who haven't adequately foreseen their enrollment eight months before students are counted. This standard also creates incentives so that schools, especially new schools, have to sacrifice their cash position in order to satisfy an arbitrary guideline outside the scope of statute or rule. Perversely, this standard will create not only a higher bureaucratic burden on educators, but also lead to more financial problems.

Several standards in other areas are also too high, if the goal is as stated--to establish a minimum standard by which the Board can determine which schools are in a financial crisis and need intervention. The most recent board meeting illustrates this story well. Ten schools were identified as potentially in crisis. All were required to respond to a bureaucratic request for information, plans, explanations, etc. In short, all faced an increased administrative and bureaucratic burden, taking time and resources away from education.

Only two of the ten were ultimately determined to be in need of additional action, yet all of them faced the additional reporting and administrative workload that the Board says its trying to avoid. Two of the schools were on the list due to large one-time purchases. One was on the list because of high startup costs in its first year. The others all had plans already in place.

I'm sure the Board is glad it collected information from all the schools, but in doing so, they violated their own goal of not adding to the reporting and already-too-high bureaucratic burden placed on charters. They also established a standard that will change the behavior of the schools, who now will operate with less of an eye on what is best for their students, and more trying to satisfy a bureaucratic standard of financial standards that only hits its target 20 percent of the time.

These standards, and all future attempts to quantify minimum standards, should be revised and restricted so they hit their targets, and don't create additional burdens, reports, and perverse incentives for schools that would better put their limited resources on education. Isn't that what we should be wanting in schools?

Huffington Post on Utah's online education bill

Utah is on the verge of having the best K-12 online learning policy in the country. SB65 makes provision for multiple statewide providers and student choice to the course level.

While high schools around the country are cutting expensive courses, students in Utah high schools this fall may have access to every AP course, any foreign language, and high level STEM courses rich with computer simulations. Assuming bill passage, students that are struggling will have several personalized options that will allow them to catch up.

SB65 encourages providers to support completion by withholding 40% of the funding until the student successfully finishes a course. The bill expands options and creates the opportunity for students to graduate early. More options, better outcomes, reduced costs--it's a good deal for Utah students, schools, and taxpayers.

Read the whole thing here.

Fix-it Bill helps charter students

Students at AMES and Salt Lake School for the Performing Arts (SPA) will soon be able to participate on sports and extracurricular activities at Cottonwood and Highland high schools, respectively. Currently, charter students can participate in activities at their boundary schools or the school they left when going to the charter.

Senator Karen Mayne's bill would specifically allow participation at districts chools where a charter co-locates. Solid move. Thanks, Senator Mayne!

UPASS will be coming back next year

From KSL:

SALT LAKE CITY -- A bill that reinstates the reporting of assessment results for public schools passed the House Wednesday and awaits the governor's signature.

Sponsored by Howard Stephenson, R- Draper, SB115 restores the state's U-PASS reporting system — which gives citizens an at-a-glance view of how students at schools in Utah are doing on their state standardized tests.

Stephenson said U-PASS reporting was inadvertently suspended for two years by legislation last session. At that time, lawmakers opted to suspend the Utah Basic Skills Competency Test, an assessment tenth graders had to pass in order to graduate, due to budget constraints. Part of that bill included suspending U-PASS reports.

Stephenson told the House Education Committee his legislation is simple and is an effort to bring back the accountability U-PASS provides.

At a State Board of Education meeting last month, State Superintendent Larry Shumway said his staff is already working to compile the data. Stephenson's bill will make assessment reports available for the 2010-2011 school year.

Online resources could transform public education

Charter schools and small districts often have to hire specialized teachers and purchase specialized supplies to meet a requirement under state or federal law. The cost of such programs can't be covered by the students in them. So, schools will often have to pay for these programs by sacrificing others.

In short, students who don't or can't take specialized programs end up paying for them as their own programs get cut. It is common for charter school elementary programs, which are usually fully enrolled and very successful, to subsidize all the extra requirements of secondary programs, which are often not fully enrolled and wouldn't have the funding to justify the expense based on their funding alone.

Good article in the Standard-Examiner today about how schools (including Legacy Preparatory Academy) are using online education. Instead of hiring a teacher and establishing an entire program to meet the needs of a handful of students who can or are required to take a course, Legacy can share that cost with UVU and other schools that participate.

Driven by necessity, this sort of cost- and program-sharing will become more commonplace, which will provide education to students at a lower cost, and more effectively leverage the labor of education's primary workforce--teachers. And that will really change what education looks like.

School grading bill is pretty simple

Looking at the language of Senator Niederhauser's School Grading bill, I'm struck that it's pretty short. And sweet.

School grades would be based on student performance on statewide tests, including CRTs and DWA. Equal weight would be given to the overall performance of students, the overall growth in student achievement, and achievement growth among the bottom performing 25 percent of students. High schools would have an additional piece of graduation rate.

The bill is before committee today. The testimony should be interesting.

**Update**

The bill passed the Senate Education Committee unanimously. There was a move to change the letter grades to a star system (***** instead of an A; ** instead of a D), but it was defeated.

Regional Service Centers

Brad Last is carrying a bill that would allow school districts (but not charter schools, which is the bill's shortcoming) to establish Regional Service Centers to provide educational and supplementary services to schools. I picture smaller districts further from the Wasatch Front combining efforts to employ specialty services like speech therapists, and also potentially substitute teachers or maintenance workers. The centers might also keep supplies and equipment that districts could cost-share, like printing machines or audio testing equipment.

Charters would be able to contract with such centers, but, as the statute now stands, could not play a part in setting one up.

There was talk once about the Association becoming something like this, but with charters being spread so far apart, the cost analysis never really supported the affordability of the idea. So, partnering with districts for some of those kinds of services might be nice, but it would be nice if charters weren't just the unwanted stepchild that moves in after the fact, but could have a role in the establishment of the centers.

Utah's complex funding mechanism helps pretend funding increases are there when they're not

I am happy to be linking for the first time to the USOE's new blog, for their piece on the "real" value of the WPU. (Feel free to return the favor anytime.)

The Weighted Pupil Unit is a factor, that is then applied by different formulas to fund students. Additional funding for programs, salaries, and more are funded by different formulas. The WPU is currently $2577, but per pupil spending in Utah is about $8,000. The complexity of the Minimum School Program lends itself to the kind of games that allow some to pretend that funding is the same or going up, when, on a per student basis, it's really going down.

It's time that we simplify the entire funding structure to make it more transparent and easier to understand. (This will also make it much easier for reporters to report facts, once they can understand them.)

Charters are laboratories of innovation

And when innovation works, the lessons should be applied more widely across the public education landscape. SB119 is such an effort.

Charter school directors (which are usually the equivalent of both a principal and district superintendent) don't need to be licensed educators. And praise the Lord for that.

Licensed educators most often come up through the establishment system, and tend to operate most comfortably with the way things have always worked. Having someone from outside education can give a new perspective on age-old problems and bring new and innovative solutions to solve educational problems.

We are moving further down the road where all of public education will look more like charter schools. Locally controlled, innovative in approach, accountable to parents, and focused on outcomes.

Revolving Loan amendment bill passes unanimously

This bill shouldn't be and wasn't controversial, but without it, new charter schools in Utah would be incredibly expensive, if they could open at all.

At issue is a conflict in statute. The legislature created the startup loan program to assist schools with the cost of startup, including paying startup staff, marketing the school, purchasing equipment and supplies, and more. But, the money for the program came from a Capital Outlay funding stream, which restricted expenses only to facilities and long-term assets.

Without this bill passing, no charter school would have had any money for supplies, salaries, or services until July 31--two to three weeks before they open.

Recognizing that situation for being untenable, the House Education Committee wisely passed HB83 with no dissent.

Changes to the charter school board

SB140 would make some clarifying changes to the makeup and procedures for people who serve on the State Charter School board. Currently, the board has no members who have any experience in starter schools. While having experts in banking, finance, law, and education are all valuable, but currently, that expertise is completely disconnected from any practical knowledge of how these aspects relate to the actual establishment and management of a charter school. Charter Schools forwarded several names of qualified people who would have brought such expertise to the Board, but none of them were seriously considered (as measured by not even having an interview).

This bill would specifically define charter school establishment or administration as a requirement for the board to have. Further, it allows the governor to seek nominations from groups like UAPCS.

The State Charter Board is supposed to look out for the interests of Utah's charter schools. The ignorance on the board that comes from the complete absence of experience within the movement will inevitably lead the board to become one that is more bureaucratic and less accepting of innovation, which always upsets bureaucracy.