A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY BY DAVID OSBORNE A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY 2 PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY BY DAVID OSBORNE MAY 2016 PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE 3 A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS David Osborne would like to thank the Walton Family Foundation, The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation for their support of this work. He would also like to thank the dozens of people within Denver Public Schools, Denver’s charter schools, and the broader education reform community who shared their experience and wisdom with him. Thanks go also to those who generously took the time to read drafts and provide feedback. Finally, David is grateful to those at the Progressive Policy Institute who contributed to this report, including President Will Marshall, who provided editorial guidance, intern Cullen Wells, who assisted with graphs, and Steven K. Chlapecka, who shepherded the manuscript through to publication. 4 PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY TABLE OF CONTENTS A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY THE DENVER STORY . 2 MEASURING PERFORMANCE: DENVER’S SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK . 6 WINNING THE POLITICIAL BATTLE . 10 DELIVERING RESULTS . 11 DENVER’S SCHOOL CHOICE ENVIRONMENT . 12 CHARTER SCHOOLS LEAD THE WAY . 16 INNOVATION SCHOOLS STRUGGLE FOR AUTONOMY . 18 DENVER’S REMAINING CHALLENGES . 22 DENVER OFFERS A LESSON ON PERFORMANCE PAY . 23 THE SECRETS OF DENVER’S POLITICAL SUCCESS . 29 ABOUT THE AUTHOR . 34 PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE i A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY ome of the most dramatic gains in urban Of DPS’s 223 schools today, 55 are charters, which education have come from school districts using educate 18.3 percent of its students; 38 are innovation Swhat many call a “portfolio strategy.” Others schools, which educate 19.3 percent.2 Last year the call it “reinvention,” a “21st century approach,” or Board of Education voted for a major expansion of “relinquishment.” By whatever name, it generally means successful charter schools. In April 2016 it approved an that districts negotiate performance agreements with Innovation Zone with an independent, nonprofit board some mix of traditional, charter, and hybrid public and a three-year performance contract with the district. schools, allow them great autonomy, let them handcraft Beginning with four innovation schools but able to their schools to fit the needs of their students, give expand, the zone should, for the first time, give district parents their choice of schools, replicate successful schools the autonomy charters enjoy. schools, and replace failing schools. For years, Denver’s reforms stirred controversy. When Many doubt such a strategy is possible with an elected the board closed or replaced failing schools, protests board, because closing schools and laying off teachers erupted and board meetings dragged into the wee triggers such fierce resistance. Most cities pursuing the hours. During most of Superintendent Tom Boasberg’s portfolio strategy—such as New Orleans, Washington, first five years, he had only a 4-3 majority on the board. D.C., and Camden, N.J.—have done so with insulation But the strategy has produced steady results: A decade from local electoral politics. In New Orleans, the state ago, Denver had the lowest rates of academic growth board of education and its Recovery School District among Colorado’s medium and large districts; for (RSD) oversee most of the schools; in D.C., Congress the most recent three years for which growth scores intervened, creating an appointed Public Charter are available, it has ranked at the top.3 Voters have School Board; and, in Camden, the state took over responded by electing a 7-0 majority for reform. the district. Denver’s progress—driven in part by the success of its All of which explains why reformers are paying charter schools—has been among the most impressive close attention to Denver, Colorado. With an in the nation. By accomplishing this with an elected elected board, Denver Public Schools (DPS) has school board, Denver has shown other districts with embraced charter schools and created “innovation elected boards a politically viable path forward. schools,” which it treats somewhat like charters. Since 2005 it has closed or replaced 48 schools One factor that helped the reformers was growth: and opened more than 70, the majority of them DPS claims to be the fastest growing urban district charters.1 In 2010 DPS signed a Collaboration in the country. It is easier to open and close schools Compact with charter leaders committing to when your student population is rising, and, since equitable funding and a common enrollment 2007, enrollment has increased 25 percent—driven system for charters and traditional schools, plus by population growth, residential development on a replication of the most effective schools—whether closed airport and military base, expanded preschool charter or traditional. programs, and students returning from neighboring 1 PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY Figure 1: Denver Gradually Increases Charter & Innovation School Enrollment Number of Students by School Type Charter Innovation Traditional 18,000 18,000 75,000 12,000 12,000 50,000 6,000 6,000 25,000 0 0 0 2005 2015 2005 2015 2005 2015 Source: Colorado Department of Education districts.4 Today DPS reports 91,429 students, ranging 3. Make the Innovation Zone work, then expand it. from age 3 to grade 12. 4. Expand equal opportunity by expanding public On the other hand, Denver’s demographics present school choice. challenges. As Figure 2 shows, just over 56 percent of its students are Hispanic; 22.6 percent are 5. Expand equal opportunity by budgeting for actual white; and 13.8 percent are African American.5 teacher salaries rather than average teacher salaries. About seven in ten are poor, qualifying for a free or reduced-price lunch, and 32 percent are English 6. Create real autonomy for all schools. language learners.6 7. Align DPS staff around the portfolio strategy— Shortages of money have also created hurdles. particularly around a specific vision of school Colorado, which cut education spending deeply autonomy. following the Great Recession, ranks 42nd in the nation in spending per pupil.7 DPS revenue per student 8. Double down on the development and recruitment is still below the level of 2009-10.8 of strong school leaders. With such headwinds, Denver needs to continue 9. And fix its School Performance Framework, which its reforms to maintain and accelerate its academic allows schools to appear successful even when their progress. To summarize what will be argued later, DPS students are falling further behind grade level should: every year. 1. Accelerate the replacement of failing schools. THE DENVER STORY 2. Expand its charter sector—particularly by recruiting In 2005, DPS was floundering. Out of 98,000 seats, strong charter networks from other states—and 31,000 were empty, and many school buildings were ensure that there are adequate facilities for new half full. Almost 16,000 students chose private or charters. suburban schools instead.9 A financial crisis loomed, PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE 2 A 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE MILE-HIGH CITY Figure 2: Denver Student Demographics Percent of Students, Selected Demographic Measures White 22.6% African-American 13.8% Hispanic 56.0% Low Income 70.0% English Language Learners 32.0% Source: Denver Public Schools and A+ Colorado in the form of pension contributions the district “There was a consensus that we had to do something,” could not afford.10 When Superintendent Jerry says David Greenberg, who founded the city’s most Wartgow retired, in 2005, the Board of Education successful charter network. “But there was no chose Michael Bennet, chief of staff for then-Mayor consensus about what.” John Hickenlooper, to replace him. Bennet had no background in public education, but he had spent time Michael Bennet knew he had to lure students back from turning around failing companies and restructuring other districts to stave off financial ruin. He considered debt for a local investment firm. the charter sector too small and ineffective to make a difference, and—reliant as he was on education A few reforms were already underway. The state professionals—his first instincts were to centralize. legislature had passed inter-district public school According to Greenberg, “He opposed expansion choice in 1990 and a charter school law in 1993, of charters within the district, on the grounds that though most DPS leaders had been indifferent charters ‘stole’ students from the district and thus were or hostile to charters and had done a poor job of costing the district money.”12 authorizing. Only 7 percent of public school students attended 17 charters—half of which performed below Bruce Hoyt, who was then a board member, says the district average.11 Wortgow had negotiated a Bennet and the board opted for a centralized strategy pathbreaking pay-for-performance system, called because the district was in such bad shape. “Given the ProComp, with the Denver Classroom Teachers weak capacity of school leadership, lack of good data Association (DCTA). He was reconstituting 13 systems to have accountability, and concerns over the elementary and middle schools, and he had built large mobility rates of our students, the board adopted support for DPS among business and community a ‘Managed Instruction’ theory of action,” he says. leaders. Several local foundations were pushing for This meant central control over curriculum, budgets, reform, African-American and Latino leaders were hiring, and almost everything else.