Rick Hess's Blog on Common Core

A Playbook for the Common Core’ites: Part I

I’ve long said that the Common Core strikes me as an intriguing effort that could do much good. So, why am I not on board? Because I think the effort has a good chance of stalling out over the next four or five years. And, because standards and assessments are the backbone of pretty much everything else in K-12 schooling, that could tear down all manner of promising efforts on teacher quality, school improvement, and the rest.

This all leaves me feeling a lot like a kid watching a scary movie through crossed fingers. The past couple weeks, I’ve been struck by how fragile the effort is starting to seem and how clumsily the Common Core’ites seem to be responding to challenges. In the spirit of public service, here’s some advice shouted at the screen. Today, I’ll offer my two cents on why things stand where they do; on Thursday, I’ll offer a few thoughts on what the Common Core’ites can do about it.

The flame jumped the “firebreak”: The giant strategic error for the Common Core advocates was their refusal, from 2009 through much of 2012, to actually take the critics seriously. They treated concerns as a fringe phenomenon, dismissing or ridiculing questions of federal involvement, the quality of the standards, and the rest. Whoops. A politically savvy observer would note that — like opposition to the Iraq War, health care reform, or NCLB — complaints always start at the “fringe.” Like sparks thrown off by a fire, these complaints by themselves are ineffectual. What matters is whether those sparks cross the clearing around the campfire and ignite the forest of more mainstream sentiment. That happened back in mid-2012. Common Core proponents could have reduced the likelihood of the fire jumping by hosing down the firebreak — e.g. by responding concretely to misconceptions, acknowledging concerns, and working hard to reassure those most exposed to the flames. They did none of this until the fire crossed and was burning fiercely on the other side.

Nature abhors a vacuum: Surprising, given the nature of their enterprise, the Common Core advocates have long shown remarkably little interest in taking the time and energy to discuss their exercise with those outside the education policy bubble. (I’ve been given all kinds of good reasons for this — from a dearth of manpower to the need to focus on technical issues — but they don’t change the reality.) Instead, Common Core’ites seemed eager to pocket their Race to the Top-aided wins and just move on to implementation. The problem is that adopting the Common Core doesn’t end the political and popular discussion; instead, it prompts questions about spending, accountability, teacher preparation, governance, and the rest. And it’s now clear that lots of parents, policymakers, and educators never really understood the Common Core, and certainly don’t feel obliged to do what it’ll take to implement it. The paucity of public discussion created a vacuum, and we’re now seeing it filled. Cato’s Neal McCluskey captured this dynamic last week in a public email exchange, explaining: “I’d note that many of the new Common Core opponents are just finding out about Common Core as it hits their schools, unlike supporters who have been working on this for several years. They may simply not have the necessary information, which is likely in part due to the rushed adoption catalyzed by Race to the Top. And a lot of people, from what I can tell, mistakenly attribute things to Common Core – such as data-mining – that should be attributed to Race to the Top. But all those things are intentionally connected, so while the facts may be wrong, the concerns and message are often far from nutty.” Having realized late in the game that changing K-12 standards and assessments for more than 40 million students in more than 40 states might prove controversial, Common Core advocates have opted primarily to ridicule and dismiss skeptics. Not so surprisingly, the Tea Partiers and anti-Common Core’ites haven’t been persuaded.

The Marco Rubio strategy: One problem for the Common Core’ites, at this point, is none of their champions carry much credibility with the Tea Partiers (or with the anti-testing left). This may seem kind of surprising, given the support of prominent conservatives like Jeb Bush and Tony Bennett. But people only accept leadership from leaders who they believe are watching out for their concerns. Florida Senator Marco Rubio has worked double-time to do this when it comes to the immigration bill. There, he’s taken great pains throughout to suggest that he’s the Tea Party’s ambassador to the Gang of Eight, and not vice versa. The problem for Bush et al. is that they’ve appeared throughout the Common Core scrap to be Common Core’ites wooing the right, rather than conservatives making sure the Common Core doesn’t get hijacked by Obama partisans. The other week, for instance, Bush’s foundation issued a document that challenged a number of misperceptions about the Common Core. Fair enough, but it would’ve been a terrific chance to acknowledge some of the legitimate concerns that conservatives have raised and tell ‘em, “I’m keeping an eye on these things.”

Policy is like a funhouse mirror: This stuff matters because the advocates have a real problem — things they regard as sensible and unexceptional are much more disconcerting to many conservatives. Policy is often like a funhouse mirror. Concerns that strike one side as baseless or silly can seem very real to another. The fact that few education reformers or edu-reporters are conservatives (and fewer still see Tea Partiers as anything more than caricatures) makes it easy for them to dismiss concerns. Federal inducements to adopt the Common Core through Race to the Top or waivers are dismissed as modest nudges that don’t compromise the Core’s “voluntary” nature. Complaints about the $350 million in federal funds for SBAC and PARCC are dismissed as bellyaching about a dollop of critical federal seed money. President Obama bragging in the State of the Union that he pushed states to adopt the Common Core is dismissed as irrelevant bombast. Fears of intrusive data collection are dismissed as paranoia (though these are a bit tougher to dismiss than they were a month ago). Advocates don’t even seem able to process the complaint that standards constructed by CCSSO, NGA, and affiliated technocrats are less a state-led endeavor than an E.U.-like exercise in sprawling, unaccountable bureaucratic gestation.

Start by taking skeptics seriously: Tea Partiers are frustrated when liberals describe support for balanced budgets, limited government, Second Amendment rights, and the repeal of health care reform as racist, violent, xenophobic, callous, and uncaring. Yet, whether or not Tea Partiers feel misunderstood, pundits and journalists repeatedly explain that they need to grow up, start compromising, and get over themselves. That same advice would come in handy for Common Core’ites. They’d do well to push past their impatience with skeptics and disdain for talk of compromise around timelines, implementation, and the rest. Especially with something like the Common Core, where success will turn on the willingness of state boards, legislatures, governors, and educators to follow through, it’s time to start taking the political challenges seriously.

I’ll offer some thoughts as to what proponents might do about all this on Thursday. Meantime, here are three good resources for those who are interested in taking these issues seriously.

1] Check out my colleague Mike McShane’s thoughtful ten-part series on the implementation challenges of the Common Corehere.

2] Check out the recent set of extensive AEI white papers on the same topic here.

3] And check out what Fordham’s Mike Petrilli and Checker Finn have been writing on this score, as they’ve spent the past couple years operating as pretty much the only Common Core enthusiasts willing to publicly call out Obama overreach or talk frankly about problems and missteps (as with Fordham’s tough new analysis of the Next Generation Science Standards).

-Rick Hess
This blog entry first appeared on Rick Hess Straight Up.

Colorado Digital BOCES Online School Approved

The new College Prep Online Academy's application for multi-district online certification was approved by the Colorado Board of Education yesterday on a 5-1 vote (Berman voted no and Lundeen recused himself). The school is operated by the new Colorado Digital Board of Cooperative Education Services (CD BOCES), which organized solely to provide high quality public online education.

The CD BOCES is a cooperative between the Falcon 49 and Yuma 1 school districts. The Pikes Peak Community College has adopted a resolution to join the BOCES, also. The vision for the CD BOCES is to provide a greater level of accountability in conjunction with a greater level of support.

College Prep Online Academy (CPOA) will operate with parent contracts so that if students fall below proficiency, the parents understand they must bring their child in to a center where the student can receive personalized instruction. The school will be operated by the K12 management company.

For more information on the CD BOCES or CPOA, visit the cdboces.org website.

Financial Transparency Requirements

By Eileen Johnston

I believe that a couple of the requirements under the Financial Transparency Act are being misinterpreted by many charter schools.  While most schools are compliant with posting their accounts payable check register, salary schedule and credit card statements, there may be some confusion about posting financial statements and investment statements.

The statute requires that, at a minimum, financial statements be posted quarterly.  It further requires that financial reports be posted within sixty days after completion.  Most schools post their quarterly statements within the time frame, but they are not posting their monthly statements. I am not aware of any school that only produces quarterly statements.  It seems to me that it would be extremely difficult to effectively manage a budget if you only saw a budget to actual statement once every three months.  To the extent that schools are producing monthly financial statements for their board and/or administration, these reports need to be posted within sixty days of preparation.

The other area that is often overlooked is posting money market statements.  Generally, schools will post their statements from CSAFE or other investment institutions, but the money market account is not included.  In as much as money market accounts earn interest, (albeit insignificant), they should be included in your monthly postings. 

Online Learning

The following post is from the Ed is Watching blog. 

Has Colorado taken another step toward providing students with greater choice and opportunity through access to digital learning options? If so, how big and effective a step has been taken? Let’s look at a piece of education legislation that was overshadowed by the likes of the “Future School Finance Act” and others, Senate Bill 139.

A recent online column by Reilly Pharo of the Colorado Children’s Campaign and the Donnell-Kay Foundation’s Matt Samelson shares an overview of SB 139′s key provisions:

Now, what exactly does this legislation do? * Track academic performance of students in online and blended learning courses? Check. Provide educator access to professional development for online and blended courses? Check. Create local level supports at schools and districts for these courses? Check. Promote mentoring to help students be more successful in an online environment? Check. Increasing market incentives for high quality providers in the state? Check.

Pharo and Samelson — the latter of whom worked with my Education Policy Center friends on the development of a digital learning policy road map for Colorado — note that SB 139 creates “a selection committee charged with awarding contracts to statewide online education providers.” The legislation directs the state to contract with a local BOCES (Board of Cooperative Education Services) to oversee the sharing of supplemental online and blended learning resources, especially with rural schools, at no additional cost to state taxpayers.

I have to wonder aloud: How would this new system work in conjunction with the proposed Digital BOCES idea? Could the Falcon 49 brainchild possibly be thatBOCES the legislation talks about? Maybe there’s a complementary role? A little more thought and digging needs to be done.

Currently, the Mountain BOCES contracts with Colorado Online Learning to provide supplemental courses at fixed rates. But as Pharo and Samelson explain, the change opens the door to more providers without an artificial price cap:

The new law improves the state’s ability to provide supplemental online offerings by removing an arbitrary cost per-course cap of $200 that resulted in a distorted market, limiting the expansion of high quality supplemental courses.

As usual, more work remains to be done. But at first blush, SB 139 sure looks like a small positive step forward for choice, innovation, and quality in Colorado’s digital learning environment. I sure needed something to make me smile today, and this news will do.

Charter School Board Presidents, Part 3

Believe it or not, sometimes people sitting on charter school governing boards do things they shouldn't. Not surprised? I know I've written about it numerous times over the years, including last year when I saw some pretty crazy things going on.

Who's responsibility is it to address improper board behavior? The Board President's.

How, you ask? Every charter school should have a governing board handbook that outlines the school's vision, the role of the board, expected board behavior, the authority and decision-making structure with the authorizer and school administration, and ethics. This handbook should be signed by every board member every year. In fact, immediately upon election, new board members should sign it.

Sometimes board member don't even realize that what they're doing is causing problems. It's very difficult for charter school parents to separate their role as a parent from their role as a board member. The two are very different and require repeated verbalization of which "hat" the board member is wearing.

I've had to discuss inappropriate actions by my son with the Principal and then later, as Board President, not bring that situation into the Principal's evaluation. This is especially important when there are personal differences of opinion. The board needs to provide the Principal the latitude to make decisions and not second-guess those simply based on a different personal opinion of how the situation should have been handled. The board needs to even allow the Principal to make mistakes. After all, who does their job perfectly every day? The Principal needs the same latitude.

If a board member is acting inappropriately, the first step is for the President to discuss the matter with the board member one-on-one. Using the board handbook, the President points out how what the board member is doing or saying violates the agreement. Give the errant board member the benefit of the doubt going in to the conversation and expect him/her to respond positively, having simply not known.

But if that's not the case, and the board member continues to cause problems, then two board members should go speak to him/her. For boards where two member constitute a quorum or law stipulates two member cannot discuss business, this is not an option. For example, all charter schools authorized by the state Charter School Institute are under state law that prevents two board members from meeting or discussing school business.

The third step if the inappropriate behavior continues, is to discuss it in public at a board meeting. Errant board behavior is not an acceptable reason for an Executive Session. It must be discussed in public.

How the board addresses improper board behavior can be handled a few different ways, depending on the board's Bylaws and how the other members want to handle it. Here are a few options:

• Discuss the situation and resolve it.
• The majority of the board adopts a resolution "censuring" or noting the errant behavior.
• If Bylaws permit, and the case is severe or the board members is continuing to do something even after repeated discussions, the majority of the Board may vote to remove the errant member.

It's wise to consult the school's attorney before taking these steps to ensure the President knows the legal options available and doesn't make a mistake that could ultimately harm the school.

From my experience, most of bad board behavior issues are about power struggles. New, inexperienced board members want to make their mark on the school or have their own agenda. Far too often, the school community is harmed by these misguided individuals. It's better for the board President to handle the situation promptly, rather than waiting until it escalates.

Charter School Board Presidents, Part 2

Being a good board President entails knowing what the role IS and IS NOT. The President doesn't have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the rest of the board. Rather, the President is the communication hub for the board.

When a safety issue arises at school, the administration should call the board President. In turn, the President will communicate with the rest of the governing board. Further, the President may act on behalf of the board when duly authorized to do so, such as signing a contract or a letter.

One of the most important roles of the board President is to set meeting agendas, in collaboration with the school leader. When I served as board President, I had a regular monthly meeting with the Principal where we put together the agenda. A week following that meeting, board packet items had to be submitted to me and then a week before the monthly board meeting, I sent out those packets to my fellow board members.

Having an annual board calendar is very helpful for board President's to know when a routine item, such as approving the annual budget, should be on the board agenda. Moreover, dates in board policies should be on the annual calendar.

A friend of mine, who serves as board President at his charter school, created an Excel spreadsheet with the entire year's meeting agendas laid out on each tab. There was also a tab where the reasons for going into Executive Sessions were listed, which allowed him to cut and paste in the specific statutory reference when it was needed. At the bottom of each agenda, there was the "annual calendar" list of board policy items that needed to be addressed in that particular month. This was the rationale for why specific items were on each agenda and would also serve as a guide for future board Presidents. I used this spreadsheet when I was working with a charter school board last year and found it to be a very useful, and practical, tool.

Oftentimes, the board President needs to communicate mundane things with the board such as future meeting dates. It's convenient to do this via email, but this is also a good time to remember the limitations on board member communications as a result of the Open Meetings law, (a.k.a. Sunshine Law). There cannot be an electronic "discussion." This means a one-way communication from the President to the rest of the board is permissible. However, board members may NOT hit "Reply All" because that would begin a "discussion" under the law.

The board should authorize the President to sign specific contracts, such as the charter contract, on behalf of the organization. Even though the Bylaws probably authorize the President to represent the corporation in this manner, it's best to have the entire board approve the contract and authorize the President to sign it. The same goes for annual teacher agreements.

The board President should never take it upon him/herself to make decisions for the board. The board acts as a whole, with one voice. The President communicates that "one voice" to the school leader, parents, students, staff, and the school community. While the President is oftentimes privy to information the rest of the board is not made aware of, that should all be communicated to the rest of the board to ensure the board, as a whole, makes wise decisions.

Good Presidents work on behalf of their board members to ensure good lines of communication. Not only do the other board members need that type of leadership, the school leader does, also.

Charter School Board Presidents, Part 1

Charter school board President's are typically someone whose children attend the charter school and they were happy parents involved in the classroom or chaperoning field trips. Then, somehow, they went from involved parents to being on the governing board to being the President. In very little time, inexperienced, well-meaning people are thrust into the role of chairing meetings, drafting board agendas and serving as the chief communication link with the school leader. At this point, many people feel like they're in over their head.

This new series, especially for board Presidents, is designed to break down the myriad of responsibilities associated with being the President and equip that person with the resources needed to fulfill the role well.

It's important to note the difference between the role of the Chair and President. The Chair presides at board meetings. That's it. Nothing else. The President is the individual that sets the agenda, posts the agenda, meets monthly with the school leader, maintains the board's calendar, ensures proper communication between the school leader and the rest of the board, acts on behalf of the full board (when authorized) to sign corporate documents, and is the first person to address improper board behavior.

Some charter schools have both a Chair and a President. Others have only a President. Either way is fine. Personally, I prefer the two roles be separate because as the board President for seven years, I liked being able to focus on the agenda and what needed to be accomplished or scheduled for the following meeting rather than being focused on if a "friendly amendment" should be a substitute motion or an amendment to the main motion.

Since this post deals with chairing board meetings, I will refer to the individual leading the meeting as Chair.

First, brush up on Robert's Rules of Order. Chairing a charter school governing board meeting means the Chair is the final authority in making decisions about what occurs during meetings. Here's a quick guide for easy reference during meetings. Most people aren't very familiar with anything other than the basics of Robert's Rules so when the board Chair knows enough to be comfortable with how to chair proceedings, it instills confidence in his/her leadership. The most important reason to use Robert's Rules for every meeting is because it's very clear what action has taken place and where the board is in the process of making decisions. There's also a Question and Answer guide for the most commonly-asked questions from charter school board members.

The second most important thing to remember in chairing a charter school board meeting is to make sure everything is done transparently and is properly communicated. Take the time to explain what's happening to audience members. However, while a board meeting is a public meeting, the public should not be involved in the meeting. Don't begin the practice of inviting comment at any time during the meeting other than the posted Public Comment agenda item as it will slow down meetings, create misunderstanding about the board's role and often causes hard feelings. It's the nature of charter school parents to believe they "run" the school rather than that they have a "parent governed" school.

Board members want to know that their volunteer time spent attending meetings and serving on board committees is worthwhile. This means having productive board meetings that start and end on time. In order to accomplish productive meetings, it's essential for the Chair to ensure the pace of the meeting is brisk without making board members feel like they were able to speak their opinion on a motion. The Chair can establish a norm that each board member is allowed to speak twice to each motion, but no more. Further, the Chair should have it prearranged with the Vice Chair, or another board member, that when discussions are getting bogged down, the Vice Chair "calls the question." At this point discussion ceases and the motion to call the question is voted on. If it passes, the motion on the table is immediately voted on without any further discussion. Usually it only takes once or twice of someone calling the question before the rest of the board gets the message that they need to be succinct and to the point and then be ready to vote on the motion. The Chair further sends the message that board member time is valuable and therefore will be respected.

Many boards find it effective to briefly discuss pros and cons of the meetings at the end of each meeting. This allows board members to give feedback for something they'd like changed or make suggestions for a portion of the board's work that didn't go well. Effective charter school boards also evaluate themselves, as a whole, at least annually using an instrument that addresses all aspects of the board's work.

Charter School Financial Oversight

by Eileen Johnston

Charter schools are usually started by parents who are engaged in the education of their children.  They are the parents who are committed to supporting their children in any and every way they can.  They are passionate about ensuring that their student is exposed to the methodology that they believe will be the best experience for their child.  They likely have experience in education; however, generally they are not accountants or bookkeepers, and very likely know nothing about accounting (including governmental, for profit and not for profit accounting).  In fact, the skill set and qualities that make for a great Principal do not necessarily include the ability to develop a budget and use it as an effective management tool.

There are networking opportunities available for the new Principal and/or charter school accountant.  CDE has a Business Manager's networking group that meets for a day once each quarter for professional development and offers the opportunity for attendees to share ideas and experiences.  This year there is a track for those who are new to charter schools while continuing education for those with more charter school business experience.  But this is not enough!

Authorizers must take an active role in overseeing how their charter schools are doing with providing stakeholder’s timely and accurate financial information.  New charter schools need assistance with setting up their chart of accounts and understanding what you expect and require from them.  It is not enough to check and see that they are complying with state financial transparency requirements.  It is imperative that authorizers take the time to actually read the financial statements that the schools are sending to the district and posting on their website.  It is better for all concerned when potential problems can be addressed proactively rather than reactively.

State Board Sides with Cherry Creek School District on Charter Appeal

In the appeal hearing, Infinite Charter Academy v. Cherry Creek School District, the State Board of Education sided with the school district and affirmed the decision to deny the charter school application.

The primary issue of the case was whether or not Infinite was a private school conversion. The school previously operated as a private religious Muslim school called Crescent View Academy (CVA). In 2006 CVA began contracting with Hope Online Academy to be a learning center of the charter school. During this arrangement the learning center's students take an online curriculum during the day, with a "mentor" overseeing the students. Hope Online is a public charter school authorized by the Douglas County School District. CVA offers a tuition-based religious program after school each day. About 200 students attend the learning center.

The State Board 6 to 1 to affirm the district's decision to deny Infinite Charter Academy.

Charter School Job Fair 2013

After years of having excellent weather for the annual charter school job fair at Peak to Peak Charter School in Lafayette, this year the heavy snow kept many teacher candidates away.

More than 550 teacher candidates registered for the job fair, but about 150 didn't show, largely due to the weather. However, 44 charter schools were present, many hiring numerous positions. This job fair is especially ideal for brand new charter schools hiring a complete staff.

Aspen View Academy's new Principal, Merlin Holmes said they were hiring 30 instructional positions and about 50 total staff members. Aspen View will open in the fall, in Castle Rock, with about 600 students K-6 eventually growing through 8th grade.

Jen Dauzvardis, from the Center for Professional Development at Peak to Peak, the group that organizes the job fair said that it's hard to estimate, but somewhere around half of the candidates who are screened at the job fair move on to a second interview at the charter school.

This charter school job fair is the best place to get information on positions open in the state's charter schools. Schools come from all over the state and oftentimes follow up on resumes even later in the school year.