Turnarounds in Colorado: Partnering for Innovative Reform in a Local Control StateFebruary 2013

Robin Baker, PhDKelly Hupfeld, JDPaul Teske, PhD CenterforEducationPolicyAnalysis•BuechnerInstituteforGovernance•SchoolofPublicAffairs,UniversityofColoradoDenver

Paul Hill, PhD CenteronReinventingPublicEducation•UniversityofWashington–Bothell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Doing Turnaround Right – Lessons from across the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Turnaround in Colorado – the Policy Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

The Landscape of Low-Performing Schools and Districts in Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Decision Points for Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Recommendations for Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

AppendixA–ReferencesandResources

AppendixB–OverviewofSB163,Colorado’sAccountabilitySystem

AppendixC–ListofSchoolswithPriorityImprovementandTurnaroundPlanAssignments,2012

AppendixD–ListofDistrictsAccreditedwithPriorityImprovementandTurnaroundPlans,2012

AppendixE–ResultsofDistrictRootCauseAnalysis

AppendixF–PolicyChangeOptions

AppendixG–DevelopingProceduresforTurnarounds

AppendixH–SampleDecisionCriteriaforSelectingamongSchoolInterventions

AppendixI--ListofPossibleColoradoTurnaroundPartners/Providers

AppendixJ–TypesofTechnicalAssistanceNeededbySchoolsandDistricts

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRoDUCTIoN

Colorado’sGovernor,Legislature,andStateBoardofEducationareunifiedinanambitiouscommitmenttograduateallkidsfromhighschoolpreparedforcollegeandtheworkforce.Coloradohasalotofworktodotomeetthiscommitment,andpossiblythemostcriticalnextstepisreformingorreplacingthemostpersistentlylow-performingschoolsinthestate.

ThegoalofColorado’seducationsystemistoensurethatallchildrenhaveaccesstoahighqualityschoolandthe opportunitytoreceiveanexcellenteducation.Butfortoomanystudents–urban,suburbanandruralschools–that expectationisnotbeingmet.

Thereareanumberofschoolsthatfail,yearafteryear,tomeetthestate’srequirementsforsatisfactoryperformance.TheColoradoDepartmentofEducation(CDE)isdeterminedtoconfrontandcorrecttheissue.Asdetailedinthisreport,CDEhasthewillandtheauthority,thoughnotallthenecessaryresourcesandinfrastructuretoimplementahighly- effectiveschoolturnaroundsystem.

Itiswidelyheldintheeducationprofessionthatturningachronicallylow-performingschoolintoahigh-performingschoolisthemostdifficultofalltasks.Manystrategieshavebeentried;fewhavesucceeded.However,theenormity andcomplexityoftheproblemisnotavalidexcuseforfailingtosolveit,andCDEmustleadtheway.

Thesinglemostimportantandtellingmeasureforschoolturnaroundworkiswhetherornotstudentsmovefrompoortosatisfactoryacademicperformanceinarelativelyshortperiodoftime.Thereisalsoacriticalfundingcomponentrelatedtoreconstituting,closingandopeningschools,butleveragingstrategicpartnershipstofind,developanddeployhighlyeffectiveschoolturnaroundprofessionals,morethananything,willbethedriverofsuccess.

Meetingthischallengecanonlybedonecollaboratively–byengagingmultipleentitieswithskillsandexperienceto collectivelydesign,implementandexecutenewpoliciesandpractices.Thisisauniqueandparticularlysensitivetask inColorado–toembedstatewidequalitystandardswhilerespectingandworkingwithintheconstitutionalcontextoflocalcontrol.

Manyofourstate’sschoolsdoanexcellentjobpreparingstudentsforsuccessfullivesandcareers,butmanyschools donot.InColorado,over82,000students–about10%ofallstudentsinthestate–attendschoolsthatarepersistentlylow-performing.Asystemforreversingthistrendisamongthestate’smostpronouncedunmetneeds.

Schoolsthatfailtomeettheneedsoftheirstudentsforyears,evendecades,havebeenastubbornchallengeforschoolreform.Pouringfundsintotheseschoolstoimplementtheusualschoolimprovementstrategieshasbeen,quite literally,awasteofmoney.Therealizationthattheseschoolsrequireacompletelydifferentapproachhasbeenbrought tolightthroughrecentresearch,andisreflectedinthisreport.

Turnaroundisadramaticandcomprehensiveinterventioninalow-performingschoolthat:a)producessignificantgainsinachieve-mentwithintwoyears;b)readiestheschoolforthelongerprocessoftransformationintoahigh-performanceorganization.

Mass Insight

4

TURNINg ARoUND PERSISTENTLY FAILINg SChooLS

Nationalattentiontoschoolturnaroundshasincreasedgreatlyinthepast10years,fueledbymoremeaningfulfederalandstatepoliciesonaccountabilityforchronicallylow-performingschools.

ThisisgoodnewsforColorado.Thereareseveralschoolturnaroundexamplesaroundthecountrythatarepromisingandprovidevaluablelessons.

Thecharacteristicsofturnaroundshavebeenwell-documented,andthesearetherealitiesColoradomustfacein creatingaviableschoolturnaroundsystem:

Effective school turnarounds require fundamental change in the school.

Chronicallylow-performingschoolsarenotlikelytobeturnedaroundsolelybyinterventionsthattinkeraroundtheedges, eveniftheseinterventionsarebasedonactionsthatare generallyconsideredtobegoodeducationalpractice.Tomeet theexpectationthatdramaticimprovementswilloccurwithin onetotwoyears,successfulturnaroundsgenerallyrequirea fundamental disruption in the culture and practicesoftheschool. Thisdisruptionallowseffectiveturnaroundpracticestooccur,and alsosignalsthecommitmenttodramaticchange.

Effective school turnaround leadership is essential to realizing fundamental change.

Makingthesignificantchangesnecessarytoaccomplish turnaroundrequiresaspecifickindofleadership,onethat combinesentrepreneurial attitudes and a focus on results. Leadershipstylesthataresuccessfulinschoolsfunctioningathigherlevelsmaynotworkatallinturnaroundsituations.This istrueinothersectorsaswellasineducation.Asaresult, effectiveschoolturnaroundleadershipmustbeintentionally recruitedandcultivated.

Effective school turnaround leaders take actions that result in dramatic improvement.

Insuccessfulturnarounds,theturnaroundleadertakesactionsthatresultinquickwinsinareasmostobviouslyinneedofintervention,suchasschoolculture,effectivestaffing,studentdiscipline,andphysicalfacilities.Thesequickwinsreinforcetheperceptionofdramaticchange,andarefollowedbyarelentless focus on improving student learningthroughcontinuousdataanalysisandinstructionaladjustmentsbasedonresults.

Turnaround leaders cannot implement fundamental change unless they are operating in an environment that supports autonomy and flexibility.

Turnaroundleadersmusthavetheabilitytoquicklydiagnose theissuesfacingtheschoolandtoimplementsweepingchanges thatquicklyaddresstheseissues.Thisautonomymustextend todecisionsaroundstaff,scheduling,curriculumandinstruction, andthelike.Districtsmustbeabletoprovidethisenvironment, oriftheycannot,schoolsshouldbecharteredorotherwisegivenflexibility.

5

Turnarounds are hard, and a degree of failure is to be expected.

Thechallengesofturningaroundlow-performingschoolsshouldnotbeunderestimated.Mostturnaroundeffortsfail,somethingthatistrueforothersectorsaswellaseducation.Thestateanddistrictsshouldbepreparedtotrynewinterventionsforfailedturnarounds.

Turnarounds require strategic and determined political leadership from the top.

Turnaroundsaregenerallychaoticandpainfulforcommunities.Itisdifficulttoadmitthataschoolhasfailed,andthedramaticchangesrequiredbyturnaroundareoftenviewedwithsuspicionandfear.Strategicleadershipandcommunicationsfromoutsideaswellasinsidetheschoolcanhelppeopleunderstandtheurgentneedforturnaroundincontextandlessenanxietyaboutchange.

ThisreportdiscussesColorado’scurrentabilitytoeffectivelyimplementsuccessfulschoolanddistrictturnarounds.

InColorado,nearly14,000studentsattendschoolsthathavebeenassignedTurnaroundPlans,thelowestcategoryof performanceassignedbyCDE.Another67,000attendschoolsthathavebeenratedasPriorityImprovement,thesecond lowestcategoryofperformance.AlthoughmanyofthesestudentsattendschoolsintheDenvermetroarea,low- performingschoolsarelocatedthroughoutthestateinavarietyofsizesandgeographiclocations.

Coloradoalsoassignsperformanceratingstoitsdistricts–26%ofallColoradostudentsattendschoolsindistrictsthathavebeenratedasPriorityImprovementorTurnaround.

Asinotherstates,Coloradohasinvestedsignificantfederal,state,andlocalfundsinincrementaleffortstoturnaround low-performingschools.These“lighttouch”interventionstypicallyinvolvecoachingandtrainingforstaff,andmay includeintroducingdifferentschoolmodelswiththecurrentstaff.Theseefforts,andtheirfailurestoresultindramatic andsustainableimprovement,havebeenwell-documented,bothinColoradoandnationally.Noonedoubtsthatthese actionsweretakenbyeducatorswhocaredverymuchabouttheirstudents–butitcannotbedeniedthatthevast majorityoftheseeffortshavenotsucceeded.

6

CoLoRADo’S oPPoRTUNITIES AND oPTIoNS

Inordertomeetthestate’sobligationtotransformfailingschoolsanddistrictsintohigh-performingteachingand learningorganizations,CDEmustleadthewaywithboldinitiativesto: •recruitproventurnaroundleadersandorganizationstoColorado •trainandincubatenewtalenttostaffturnaroundschoolsanddistricts •createtheinfrastructureandsystemsforturnaroundstosucceed

Oneofthedocumentedchallengestosuccessfulturnaroundstrategiesisthelackofschoolleaderswhocanimplementinnovativechangeinacomplexcommunityandpoliticalenvironment.CDEanditspartnersmust: •partnerwithprovenleadershipdevelopmentorganizationstodeliverleadershiptrainingthatisspecifically

tailoredtothehard-to-fillstaffingneedsatturnaroundschoolsanddistricts •encourage,supportandincubateneworganizationstobolsterthehumancapitalpipeline

Inaddition,CDEmusthavethepoliticalsupportitneedstoeffectivelyutilizethetoolsprovidedbySenateBill09-163,theEducationalAccountabilityAct(S.B.09-163),whichprovidesamenuofavailableactionsregardingschoolsanddistrictsthatareeligibleforstate-mandatedturnaroundinterventions.Theturnaroundofschoolsisbynecessitydisruptiveintheshortterminordertoachievelongtermbenefitsforstudents.

Withstrongsupport,CDEwouldhavetheauthorityandflexibilitytodirectinterventionsinpersistentlylow-performingschoolsanddistricts.Toactonthisauthority,CDEwillneedtoevaluateitsstructureandresourceallocationandcreatestrategicpartnershipsacrossthestate.

7

MoDELS oF SChooL TURNARoUND

Coloradoisoneofmanystatestryingtosolvetheschoolturnaroundproblem.CDEwillneedtocraftatailoredapproachthatnavigatesallofColorado’suniquecircumstancesandcondition.Despitethechallengesaroundturnaroundschools,thereareanumberofpromisingeffortsaroundthecountrythatyieldvaluableinsights.

Recovery School District

• Louisiana• Tennessee• Michigan

UnderaRecoverySchoolDistrictmodel,thestatecreatesanewentitythathasthepowersofatraditionalschooldistrictandistypicallygivengreatauthorityandautonomytooperateand/orcontractwithotherproviderstorunschoolsforthepurposeofturningthemaroundandpreparingthemtoreturntotheirhomedistrict.Theideaofremovingfailingschoolsfromtheirhomedistrictintoarecoverydistrictwithmoreresourcesandfocushasaclearappeal,butalsoraisessomechallenges,asdetailedinthefullreport.

Turnaround Academies and Lead Partners

• Indiana

Inthismodel,thestatedoesnotcreateanewschooldistrict,butinsteadcreatesanothertypeoforganizationorstructurethathasthesamepurpose–overseeingtheschoolwhileitisundergoingturnaroundandcreatinganenvironmentmostlikelytoleadtoturnaroundsuccess.

Thismodel,asimplementedinIndiana,providesthatschoolsintheirsixthconsecutiveyearofacademicprobationaresubjecttomandatoryturnaroundactions,determinedbythestateboardofeducation.Theseactionsmayincludeclosingtheschool,merging itwithanearbyschool,terminatingtheprincipalandstaff,bringing innewmanagement,and/orotheractionsrecommendedbythestatedepartmentofeducation.

Iftheschoolisnotclosedandistakenoverbythestate,itis designatedaTurnaroundAcademyandwillbeoperatedbya TurnaroundSchoolOperator(selectedthroughastateRFP process).

Ifaschoolisnotclosedandisnottakenoverbythestate,thedistrictworkswithaLeadPartnertoturntheschoolaround.LeadPartnersarealsoauthorizedbythestate.

8

Commissioner’s Turnaround Network

• Connecticut

TheCommissioner’sTurnaroundNetwork,operatedoutofthestate’sSchoolTurnaroundOffice,isauthorizedtomanageasetnumberofschools.InConnecticut,itissetasamaximumof25schools,selectedfromschoolsperforminginthebottom40%,withpreferencegiventovolunteersandthosewhosecollectivebargainingagreementsareexpiring.

Theschoolturnaroundofficeentersintocontractswithnonprofitorhighereducationturnaroundoperators;thedistrictcanbeapartnerintheturnaroundortheschoolturnaroundofficeservesasatemporarytrusteefortheschool.

Teachersreapplyfortheirpositionsorreturntothehomedistrict.Whilecollectivebargainingagreementsremainineffect,theymaybemodified,anddisputesaresettledbyanarbitrator.

Partnership Zone

• Delaware

APartnershipZoneisanetworkofafixednumberofthestate’slowest-performingschools.SchoolsinthePartnershipZonestaywiththeirdistricts,butaremonitoredandsupportedbythestatedepartmentofeducation’sSchoolTurnaroundUnit.

DistrictswithPartnershipZoneschoolsarerequiredtoenterinto anMOUwiththedepartmentofeducationthatprovidesfor autonomydeemednecessarytoimplementtheturnaroundmodel.

PartnershipZoneschoolsthathavecollectivebargainingagreements must“address”provisionsintheagreementthatcouldnegatively affectturnaroundimplementation;ifthepartiesareunableto agree,thestate’ssecretaryofeducationchoosesbetweenthe sides.Districtsarealsorequiredtocreateagovernancestructure fortheturnaroundworkthatinvolveseithersettingupadistrict turnaroundofficetoleadturnaroundorselectinganexternallead partnertoworkwiththeturnaroundschool.

Allofthesemodelshavefactorsthatraisevariousquestionsandconcerns.Therearefinancialandpoliticalconsider-ations.Thereisthequestionofwhethernewlegislationisneeded.Thereareuniqueissuespresentedbyruralturn-arounds.Andafundamentalquestionremainsofhowandwhentoreturnschoolstotheiroriginaldistrict.Allofthesearefactorsthatmustbeaddressedinthesearchforsolutions.

However,it is important to note what we know doesn’t work, and that is a “light touch” approach. Themoreincrementalmodelsofturnaroundshavelimiteddataandnoneshowdramaticsuccesses.Therearefewpositiveresultsfrommod-elsthatimplementcoaching,increaseintraining,orfocusonnewprograms.Whiletheymightmakeinitialsense,theyaresimplytoominortoturnaroundafailingschoolordistrict.Afailingschoolissimplynotinapositiontobenefitfromincrementaleffortsthatyieldresultsinmorefunctionalschools.Ifthatwerethecase,earlierinterventions,includingthetransformationmodelthatispartofthemenuoffederalturnaroundoptions,mighthaveworked.

9

EXPLoRINg ThE CRITICAL QUESTIoNS

Thisreportaskspertinentquestionsaboutthedifficultbutnecessaryworkofturningaroundchronicallylow-performingschoolsanddistrictsinColorado,andalsopresentsinformationandinsightsthatguidetowardanswersandsolutions.Thefullreportprovidesdetaileddataandanalysis,butinbrief,thesearetheinitialquestionsthatColoradomustaskandanswerinpursuitofasystemicschoolturnaroundsolution.

CDEwillneedtoactdifferently,anddecisively,whenitcomestoschoolturnarounds.Thenewapproachtoturnaroundneedstoincorporatethelessonslearnednationally,tailoredtotheuniqueColoradocontext.Inparticular,successfulturnaroundinColoradowillrequire:

•Astatepolicyenvironmentthatbalancestheconstitutionalvaluesofstateoversightandlocalcontrolinserviceofprovidingexcellentschoolstoallchildren

•Stateandlocalpoliciesthatprovidetheaccountability,direction,andflexibilityneededfordramaticschoolchange

•Aroleforthestatethatrepresentsthebestuseofitsauthorityandstrengthsandallowsittoalignturnaroundwithotherkeystatewideinitiativesandresources

•Arolefordistrictsinwhichthedistrictunderstandstheurgencyofturnaroundandisempoweredattheoutsettoleaddramaticchangeinitsschools

•Rolesforotherpublicandnonprofitorganizationsasleadpartners, turnaround school operators, and turnaround leadershipproviders

•Abroadcoalitionofeducationstakeholderswhoprovideleadershipandguidanceforturnaroundsinthestate

Themostdramaticturnaroundeffortsoccurringinotherstateshaveinvolvedthecreationofanindependentorganizationthatoverseesandsometimesdirectlyoperatesturnaroundeffortsinschoolsplacedinthedistrict,usuallywiththeoversightofthestatedepartmentand/orboardofeducation.Thistypeoforganization,referredtointhisreportasastaterecoveryorganization(SRO),cantaketheformofanewschooldistrict.OtherstatesusethestatedepartmentastheSRO. Currently,schoolturnaroundworkisbeingdirectedbytheSchoolandDistrictPerformanceUnitinCDE.ThestatecouldcontinuetohaveCDEfillthisrole,orcoulddecidetocreateanewstaterecoveryorganizationwiththepowersofadistrict,orcoulddecidetouseanexistingorganizationasthestaterecoveryorganization,orevensomecombinationoftheabove. Forexample,theCharterSchoolInstituteisalreadyastateagencywiththeauthorityofaschooldistrict.OtheroptionsthathavebeenraisedaretheColoradoLegacyFoundation,anonprofitorganizationthatworkswiththeDepartmentofEducationonstateinitiativesandinnovation,oranewnonprofitfundedprimarilywithfoundationinvestment,suchasaNewSchoolsforColorado-typeorganization.

How can Colorado aggressively and successfully turn around failing schools?

Who should direct Colorado’s statewide school turnaround plan?

10

Where will political and strategic leadership come from?

Lessonsfromturnaroundsinotherstatesmakeitclearthatim-provingfailingschoolsisacontentiousandpainfulprocess.Visibleandactiveleadershipatthestateleveliscriticalto buildingpublicawarenessandsupportforturnarounds.In Coloradoinparticular,whereresourcesarelowandlocalcontrol playsabigroleinhowwellreformsareimplementedornot,a unifiedmessagewillbeparticularlyimportant.Iftheeducation communityisdivided,cooperationamongthedistrictsandthe statewillbeweakened,andachallengetothelawonlocalcontrolgroundsbecomesvirtuallyinevitable.Thisreportdiscusses variouswaystoanswerthesequestions.

Who should be responsible for the day- to-day operation of turnaround schools and districts in Colorado?

Itisimportanttodistinguishbetweenthestaterecovery organization(ororganizations)andtheentitiesthatwillserveas turnaroundoperatorsresponsiblefortheday-todayoperations ofschoolsplacedinturnaround.Turnaroundoperatorsare typicallythirdpartieswhotakeoverschooloperationsforthepurposeofquicklyliftingtheschooloutofcrisis.Researchisclearthatsuccessfulturnaroundoperatorsmustbecommittedto dramaticandsubstantialchange–intrueturnaroundsituations, incrementalchangesareawastedeffort.Anystatecommitted toschoolturnaroundmustplanforacertainnumberofschools tobetakenoverbyeffectivethird-partyturnaroundoperators. Findingsuchoperatorsisanotherchallenge.

How should low- performing schools and districts be prioritized for assistance and intervention?

Itisestimatedthat10schools,twodistricts,andaBOCESare eligibleforimmediateinterventionunderS.B.09-163because offailuretoprogressunderaTurnaroundplan.Another25-30 schoolsandeightto10districtsarelikelytoreachfiveconsecutive yearsinthelowesttwocategoriesiftheycontinueonsimilar trajectoriesintheirnexttwoannualplanassignments.

Howwillthesystemmanageits“caseload?”Iffewerthanall eligibleschoolsanddistrictswillbeinturnaroundatanygiven time,whatwillthedecisioncriteriabeforidentifyingthemore urgentcases?Theexperiencesinotherstatessuggestthat Colorado’ssystemshouldfocusonahandfulofparticularly troubledschoolsforimmediateactionratherthantryingtogive equalattentiontoalleligibleschools.

11

RECoMMENDED NEXT STEPS

Tocreateaneffectiveandefficientschoolturnaroundsystem,theto-dolistforColoradoincludesnineinitialitems.Theseactionstepsareexaminedandexplainedindetailinthefullreportandserveasaprioritizedchecklist,oraroadmap,forcreatingacomprehensiveschoolturnaroundsystemforColorado. 1. Identify the key

individuals and organizations who will lead the implementation of S.B. 09-163.

CDEisalreadyleadingthewayinimplementingS.B.09-163,andtheStateBoardofEducationwillalsoplayacriticalrole.Thestateshouldconsiderwhethercreatingnewrecoveryorganizations orempoweringexistingorganizationstoserveinthisrolewill improvethestate’sabilitytoleveragelimitedresources.TheGov-ernorandthestatelegislatureshouldalsobetappedfor leadershipinbuildingthenecessarycapacity.

2. Develop procedures that ensure that the State Board of Education is provided with comprehensive information and analysis.

TheStateBoardofEducationistheentityresponsiblefor determiningtheappropriateinterventionforthelowest- performingschoolsanddistricts.Todothiswell,membersofthe StateBoardwillneedtorelyoncomprehensiveinformationabout eachschoolanddistrictcontext,includingstudentdata,prior reformefforts,districtleadershipcapacity,availablethird-party providers,availablefundingsources,andthelike.Theturnaround oversightcoordinatorwillneedtodevelopsystemstoensure thatthisinformationisreliablycollectedandanalyzed.Currently S.B.09-163providesthataStateReviewPanelistoevaluatethis informationandmakerecommendationstotheStateBoardof Education.IfthisrouteisusedtoprovideanalysistotheState BoardofEducation,theStateReviewPanel’smembershipand procedureswillneedtobecarefullyplannedandimplemented toensurecredibilityandcomprehensiveness.

3. Determine the number of schools and/or districts in need of turnaround and assess the state’s capacity to deploy teams to those units.

Thestatewillneedtoestimatetheoptimalnumberofschools anddistrictsengagedinactiveturnaround,reviewthelikely demographicandgeographiccontextfortheseschoolsand districts,anddevelopanunderstandingofthemosteffective turnaroundpartnersfortheseschools.Thestateshouldalso be prepared to consider the capacity of local districts to lead turnaroundeffortsandencouragethoseeffortswhentheyare likelytobeofhighquality,bothasamatterofefficiencyandasan appropriatebalancebetweenstateoversightandlocalcontrol.

4. Develop a supply of high-quality third- party lead partners and turnaround operators for school and district turnaround efforts.

Afterestimatingthecapacityandneedsofthesystem,thestate shoulddevelopanRFPprocessthatwillhelpcreateasteady supplyofthird-partypartnersandoperators.Thisprocessshould setthefoundationforclusteringturnaroundschoolsanddistricts insimilarsituations,suchaschartermanagementorganizations fornewly-openedand/ornewly-convertedcharterschools, orstrugglingschoolsinhigh-povertyurbandistricts.Districts overseeingturnaroundinitiativeswillneedexperiencedlead partnersforguidance.

12

5. Establish talent development pipelines to identify, train, and recruit principals and teacher leaders.

Theseleaderswillhavespecializedtrainingintheareaofschoolturnaround,andbeproperlyincentivizetoworkinturnaroundschoolsanddistricts.Theseturnaroundpipelinesshouldinclude: •Routesthattraincurrenteducatorswhodemonstrate

talentsandinterestsinlinewithsuccessfulturnaroundleaders

•Routesthattrainpersonsfromothersectorstobecomeschool turnaround leaders

•Routesthattrainturnaroundschoolleadershipteams •Routesthatrecruitproventurnaroundschoolleadersona

nationalbasis •District-developedroutesthattrainturnaroundschool

leadersfordistrictturnaroundinitiativesinlargerdistrictswithsubstantialnumbersoffailingschools

Adramaticnewapproach,suchascreatinganewrecoverydistrict, willlikelyrequirenewlegislation.Evenifthecurrentframeworkof S.B.09-163isretained,thereareglitchesthatcouldinterferewith someofthestatutoryturnaroundoptions.Thefollowinglegislative amendmentsarerecommendedtoensurethegoalsofS.B.09-163 areachieved: •Providethatturnaroundoperatorsforschoolsanddistricts

directedtoimplementmandatoryturnaroundinterventionsaregivenmaximumautonomyintheareasofstaffing,scheduling,curriculum,etc

•Providethatschoolssubjecttoturnaroundmaybedirectedtoimplementoneormoreofthestatutoryoptions

•Providethatschoolssubjecttoturnaroundinterventionsmaybedirectedtocloseandrestart

•ProvidethatdistrictsaccreditedwithPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundPlansloseexclusivecharteringauthority

•Providethatschoolsconvertedintocharterschoolsasaresultofturnaroundmaybedistrict-authorizedcharterschools,independentcharterschools,orCharterSchoolInstitute-authorizedcharterschools,dependingonthecircumstances

•Clarifythatthestatemaydirectthatschoolsmaybeplacedintoanetworkofsimilarly-situatedturnaroundschools,inadditiontootheractions

•Clarifyhowandunderwhatcircumstancesschoolsmaybereturnedtodistrictmanagement

•ProvidethattheSchoolDistrictOrganizationActdoesnotrequireavoteofelectorstoapproveareorganizationorconsolidationplanresultingfromturnaround

6. Identify and implement policy changes that allow the state, districts, and schools to more fully take advantage of the desired turnaround policy.

13

7. Develop a turnaround coalition comprised of advocacy and practitioner groups.

ThecoalitionwilladviseCDEonitsturnaroundwork,assistwithturnaroundworkwhereappropriate,engageinacoordinatedcommunicationsstrategydesignedtoraisepublicawarenessaroundturnaroundandschoolimprovement,andbuildpublicsupportbothforthestate’sturnaroundsystemgenerallyandforlocalturnaroundefforts.

8. Build state and local capacity for both general and targeted technical assistance to schools and districts.

ProvidehelptoschoolsanddistrictsnotonTurnaroundstatusfor thepurposeofdecreasingthenumbersofschoolsanddistricts thateventuallyneedtobeplacedonTurnaroundandincreasing thenumbersofschoolsanddistrictsthateffectivelyserve students.Focusingonatieredsystemofsupportsthatallows supporttobedifferentiatedbasedonneedwillultimatelybethe mostcost-effectivewayforthestatetokeephigher-functioning schoolsanddistrictsoutofturnaround.Inimplementingthis recommendation,thestateshouldexpectthatmuchofthe technicalassistanceneededwillbecommonacrossreform initiativesandshouldbecoordinated.

9. Build an effective funding model.

Toensurequalityimplementation,calculatetheprojectedcost forthecomponentslistedabove,andsolicitinvestmentsfrom thestate,theU.S.DepartmentofEducation,nationalandlocal foundations,andotherpartners.Indoingso,thestateshould planforbothshort-termprioritiesandlong-termsustainability. Manyoftheactionsdescribedinthisreportcanbeginwithout additionalfunding,andthisrecommendationshouldnotbe readtodelayimplementationuntilfullfundingforlong-term implementationisachieved.

AllstakeholdersanddecisionmakersinvolvedincreatinganddeployingColorado’ssystemforturningaroundschoolsanddistrictsshouldconsidertwokeypoints.

First, the needs and best interests of students should be the first consideration and the driving factor of decision making. Thisrequiresadultstohavethecouragetoactivelymakedramaticchangesforthebenefitofstudentswhenwarranted,andtoconsiderotherapproachesincircumstanceswheredramaticchangeisnotfeasibleorbeneficialforstudents.Inotherwords,thoseinvolvedshouldstriveto“donoharm”tostudentsinlow-performingschools,whetherthatharmbethroughinactionorinappropriateaction.

Second,theturnaroundinitiativeinColoradoisoneofmanyexcitingandpromisingreforms.Inthepastfewyears,the statehaspassedlegislationaligningitsP-20educationsystem,updateditscontentstandards,createdanewwayfor schoolstooperateautonomously,passedaneweducatorevaluationsystemthatmakesstudentgrowththeprimary indicatorofperformance,anddevelopedaneweducationaccountabilitysystem.Coloradoisintheprocessofdeveloping newassessmentsandpromotingmorepersonalizedlearninginschools.Totheextentpossible, decisions made about implementing a school turnaround model should align with the state’s critical work on other initiatives.Thisallowsfor theefficientuseoflimitedresources,andalsoreinforcestheimportanceofallthereformscurrentlyunderway.

14

CONCLuSiON

IfColoradoistobuildonitsimpressiverecordofstudent-focusedreformandinnovation,thenpoliciesandpracticesforturningaroundpersistentlylow-performingschoolsanddistrictsmustbeatoppriority.Transforminglow-performingschoolsintohigh-performingschools,orclosingthemandopeningnewonesintheirplace,isthecalltoactionofthisreport.Thechildrendeserveit,andimprovingColorado’scivicandeconomicqualityoflifedependsonit.

Inthisneweraofturningaroundlow-performingschoolsanddistricts,Coloradohasmanyadvantages.Thestate benefitsfromapolicyenvironmentthatpromotestheessentialconditionsforturnaround–credibleidentificationof low-performingschoolsanddistricts,broadauthorityforavarietyofdifferentapproachestoturnaround,multiple optionsforexternaloperators,includingastatecharteringauthority,andclearconsequencesforfailuretoimprove.

Coloradohasanationally-recognizeddatasystemthatallowsmanyfactorstobetakenintoconsiderationwhenassessingschoolanddistrictperformance.Thereisarichandvariedlandscapeofeducationstakeholderswhoare,forthemostpart,alignedinseekingrealimprovementsforchildren.And,Coloradohasareputationforreformandqualityoflifethatisattractivetotalentacrossthecountry.

Tobesure,therearemajorchallengesthatlinetheroadtowardschoolanddistrictturnarounds.Itisnotawell-fundedstate,neitherintermsofstatefunding,norintermsoflocalfoundationcapacity.Theinfrastructureforimplementingnewpoliciesisnotoptimal.ThesubstantialreformpoliciesthatColoradoadoptedinrecentyearsareconstructive,eventransformative,butalsoachallengefordistrictsandschoolswhoarestruggling.

Toreversethetrendofchronicallylow-performingschools,Coloradansmustmusterthepoliticalwill,makethefinancial investment,andbraceforthetoughlovethatisnecessarytosuccessfullyturnthemaround.Thougheveryeffortmust bemadetoconstructivelyengagestudents,parents,facultyandlocalcommunities,theturnaroundprocesswilllikely becontentious.Butdeliveringonthecommitmenttograduateallkidsfromhighschoolpreparedforcollegeandthe workforcerequiresputtingtheneedsofstudentsabovethepreferencesofadults.

15

ABoUT ThE REPoRT

ThisreportwascommissionedbyGetSmartSchoolsandtheSchoolTurnaroundStudyGroup,acoalitionofinterestedindividualsandorganizationsincluding:

ColoradoDepartmentofEducation,ColoradoLegacyFoundation,AnschutzFoundation,A+Denver,ColoradoChildren’sCampaign,ColoradoLeagueofCharterSchools,CharterSchoolInstitute,ColoradoSucceeds,DanielsFund,DemocratsforEducationReformColorado,Donnell-KayFoundation,TeachforAmerica,StandforChildrenColorado

ThepurposeofthereportistoidentifythechallengesandopportunitiesforColoradotoimplementacomprehensive,innovativeschoolturnaroundsystem.Thefullreportcontainsextensivedataandanalysisrelatedtoschoolturnaroundpoliciesandpractices,andisorganizedintofivesections.

1. Doing Turnaround Right – Lessons from across the Country: review of the latest developments from turnaround efforts across the country to identify the most recent lessons learned from these efforts.

2. Turnaround in Colorado – the Policy Context: reviewing Colorado’s policy framework for district and school ac-countability, discuss available options for turnaround under that framework, and explore ideas for policy changes that might be needed in order to be able to fully and flexibly use those options in appropriate situations.

3. The Landscape of Low-Performing Schools and Districts in Colorado: examining current landscape of low-per-forming schools and districts in Colorado, identifying common trends and needs and pointing out areas that will require differentiated solutions.

4. Decision Points for Colorado:evaluatingthestrengths and weaknesses of various options.

5. Recommendations for Next Steps

16

DoINg TURNARoUND RIghT – LESSoNS FRoM ACRoSS ThE CoUNTRY

Therearemanyexcellentresearchandpolicyreportsthatprovideagoodoverviewoflessonslearnedfrompriorturn- aroundefforts.ManyofthesereportsarelistedinAppendixA,andtheirconclusionshavebeensummarizedinthe ExecutiveSummary.Ratherthanrevisitthoseconclusionsinthisreport,wewillfocusonupdatingwhathasbeen learned,usinginformationfrominterviewswithkeyplayersinmajorongoingturnaroundinitiatives.Inthissection, weexaminewhatishappeninginotherjurisdictionsacrossthecountrythatarecurrentlyengagedinturnaroundworkin ordertobetterunderstandtherangeofoptionsforinterventioninfailingschoolsanddistrictsandsomeoftheprosand consofdifferentapproaches.Aswesurveyotherstates,wealsoexamineotherstates’legalframeworksandconditions neededtosupportagivenintervention.

Wealsoexaminethedirectandindirectcostsassociatedwithdifferentapproaches,withparticularattentiontohowthenewstatefunctionsarestaffed.And,finally,wetakeaquicklookattheresultssofar(whicharemostlytooearlytosaymuch,exceptforLouisiana),andidentifyanykeylessonslearnedthatmighttranslateintoColorado’senvironment.

Different State Approaches

Moststateshavepoliciesthatpermitthestatetotakesomeformofactiontointerveneinfailingschools.According tothe2013NationalPolicyReportCardissuedbyStudentsFirst,just13statesdonotpermitanyformofstateor mayoraltakeover.Theseinterventionpoliciesdifferfromstatetostate.Somestateoptionsfordealingwithindividualfailingschoolsincludestateseizures,stateoperation,orcharteringouttheschools.Otheroptionsincludetheappointment ofastatecoachorexpertadvisorforaschool,orspecificfundingdirectedatspecialassistancetoaschool.

Forapproachesthatdealwithentiredistrictsconsideredtobefailing(inadditionto,orinsteadof,individualschoolsonly),theoptionsaresimilar—stateseizures,statedirectoperationofthedistrict,appointmentofacoachorexpertadvisor(specialmaster),orotherspecialassistancetothedistrict.

The Model of the State Recovery District

Theideaofa“recoverydistrict”comesfromLouisiana,whenitwasused,particularlyaftertheuniquecircumstances ofHurricaneKatrina,toturnaroundandre-createmanyschools.Underthismodel,thestatecreatesanewentity thathasthepowersofatraditionalschooldistrictandistypicallygivengreatauthorityandautonomytooperateand/orcontractwithotherproviderstorunschoolsforthepurposeofturningthemaroundandpreparingthemtoreturn tothehomedistrict.Theideaofremovingfailingschoolsfromtheirhomedistrictintoarecoverydistrictwithmore resourcesandfocushasaclearappeal,butalsoraisessomechallenges.Inthissection,weexaminesomestatesthathavetakenthisapproach.

Louisiana Recovery School District

TheLouisianaRecoverySchoolDistrict(LARSD),aspecialdistrictoverseenbythestateBoardofEducation,wascreatedin2003duetogeneralschoolsystemfailures.AfterHurricaneKatrina,thestatelegislaturesignificantlyexpandedtheroleoftheRSD.Schoolsratedasacademicallyunacceptableunderthestate’saccountabilitysystemforfourconsecutiveyearsareeligiblefortransferintotheRSD.DistrictsthatwanttoleadtheirownschoolturnaroundeffortsenterintoanMOUwiththestatethatestablishestheconditionsthatmustbemetwithinoneyeartoavoidtransferintotheMOU.

TheRSDhasalloftheauthorityofatraditionalschooldistrictwithrespecttotheschoolsandstudentsunderitsjurisdiction. Currently,itoperates19schoolsdirectly,usingstafffromTeachforAmericaandTheNewTeacherProject.Another58

17

RSDschoolsareoperatedbycharteroperators.TwentyschoolsareoperatedunderMOUsbetweentheirdistrictsand thestate,andwillbetakenoverbytheRSDunlesstheyimprove.RSDschoolsarerequiredtoremaininthedistrictfor aminimumoffiveyearstoallowforsufficienttimeforturnaround.

TheLARSDhasbeenthemostactivestate-createddistrictinthecountry.Atitspeak,whenitoperatedallofitsschools directly,ithadastaffof225peopleandlarge-scalefundingfromFEMA,federalandprivategrants,plusarevenuestream froma1.75percentfeeonstudentperpupiloperatingrevenues.Initslessbureaucraticphase,itworksasanorganization thatmainlychartersschoolsandpartnerswithoutsideproviders.

RSDschoolsareshowingverypositiveacademicoutcomes,comparedtothepastandtonon-RSDschools.Charter schoolshavethebestperformance,followedbyMOUschoolsandthenschoolsrunbytheRSDitself.Asaresultofthis process,80percentofschoolslocatedinNewOrleansarenowcharterschools.Comparedtootherstates’turnaround approaches,Louisiana’sRSDisrelativelywell-studied.Dependinguponwhowasleadingit,RSDtookdifferentapproaches, withvaryingdegreesofsuccess.Itseemstoworklesswellwhenoperatinglikeatraditionaldistrict,andbetterwhen givingschoolsmoreautonomy.(SeeSmith2012).

Nootherstatehasdoneasmuchwithsuchadistrict.Atthesametime,thenationalmoneyandtalentthatmovedintoLouisianaaroundschoolturnaroundswasunprecedentedandunlikelytoberepeatedelsewhere.

Tennessee Achievement School District

Tennessee’sFirsttotheTopActof2010providesthat“priorityschools,”orthoseperforminginthebottomfivepercent,aresubjecttomandatoryturnaroundinterventionsdeterminedbythestate’scommissionerofeducation.Therearethreetypesofinterventions:

•Aturnaroundledbytheschool’slocaleducationagency(LEA)

•AturnaroundthattakesplaceinanLEAinnovationzonethatprovides“maximumautonomy”toschools inthezone

•PlacementinthenewlycreatedAchievementSchoolDistrict

TheAchievementSchoolDistrictisanarmofthestatedepartmentofeducationthatprovidesoversightforschoolsremovedfromthejurisdictionoftheirhomeLEA.ASDisnowfundedbyRacetotheTopmoney(Tennesseewon$500millioninthefirstroundofRacetotheTop)andfederalI-3grantfunds.

TheASDhasLEA-typeauthoritytospendandreceivefederalandstatefundsforitsschools,andalsohastheauthorityto useexistingschoolfacilitiesandassetstooperatetheschools.Underthestatute,theASDmayoperateschoolsdirectly, ormayprovidefortheday-to-dayoperationoftheschoolsbyindividuals,governmententities,ornonprofitentities.The ASDalsohasauthorizingauthorityforcharterschoolsinthedistrict.Thestatecommissionerentersintocontractswith third-partyoperators,andoperatorscanrequestthatthecommissionerwaiveanystateboardrule(withsomeexceptions). ThedirectoroftheASD,ChrisBarbic,reportstothestatecommissioner.

AchievementSchoolDistrictschooloperatorsdecidewhethertoretainstaffattheschool.Ifastaffmemberisnothired bytheoperator,thestaffmemberreturnstothegeneralemployoftheLEA.TeacherswhoacceptpositionswithASD operatorsgiveupexistingrightstosalaryandcollectivebargaining,butretaintenure,pension,andaccumulatedsick leave.Ifanoperatordismissesateacher,thatteacherreturnstotheemployoftheLEA.

18

SchoolswerefirstplacedintotheASDatthebeginningofthe2012schoolyear.TherearecurrentlysixschoolsintheASD,fivelocatedinMemphisandoneinNashville.AnothersixMemphisschoolswillbejoininginthe2013-14schoolyear,andtheASDplanstoexpandeachyear.Therearecurrently83schoolsinthestateeligibletojointheASD.

MostofthecurrentASDschoolsarelocatedinthehigh-povertyFrayserneighborhoodofMemphis,inwhich11outof15schoolsarepriorityschools.SchoolsareoperatedeitherbytheASDdirectlyorbycharteroperators.ThestatehasaCharterIncubator(partiallyfundedbyRacetotheTop),andASDcharteroperatorsincludeCornerstonePrep,AspirePublicSchools,RocketshipEducation,GestaltCommunitySchools,andKIPPCollegiateMemphis.Schoolsarematchedwithcharteroperatorsusingacommunityprocess.ASD-runschoolsusestafffromTeachforAmerica,TheNewTeacherProject,andothertalent.

ASDschoolsremainwiththedistrictforfiveyears,althoughthecommissionerhastheauthoritytoremoveschoolsfromthedistrictatanytime.Transitionplanningbeginsduringthethirdyear.

Michigan’s State School Reform District/Education Achievement Authority

In2009,MichiganpassedAct451,whichauthorizedtheestablishmentofastateschoolreform/designdistricttobeoverseenbythestateboardofeducation.Thisstructureprovidesthatthelowestfivepercentofschoolsacrossthestateareunderthesupervisionofastateschoolreformofficer,whoissuperintendentofthedistrict.

Localboardswithfailingschoolsmustsubmitturnaroundplanstothestateschoolreformofficer.Iftheturnaroundplansubmittedbythelocalschoolboardisinsufficient,thestateschoolreformofficermayplacetheschoolintheschoolreformdistrictandmayselectanappropriateturnaroundinterventionlistedinfederallaw.Schoolsthatarerestartedaretobeoperatedbyaneducationalmanagementorganizationandmaynothavecollectivebargainingagreements.Schoolsimplementingtheturnaroundoptionaresubjecttoaturnaroundcollectivebargainingagreement.Ifmorethannineschoolsareinthedistrict,nomorethan50percentmaybeimplementingthetransformationmodel.Allper-pupilrevenuesgototheleaderoftheschool,whohasfullauthorityovercurriculumanddiscretionaryspending.Todate,thestatewideschooldistricthasnotyetbeencreated,andnoschoolshavebeenplacedinastatewidedistrict.

In2011,GovernorRickSnyderarrangedforthecreationoftheEducationAchievementAuthoritythroughamemorandum ofunderstandingbetweentheDetroitPublicSchoolsandEasternMichiganUniversity.ThisMOUwaspromptedbytheappointmentofaformerGMexecutiveas“emergencymanager”fortheDetroitPublicSchoolsunderapre-existingstatutethatauthorizedtheappointmentofemergencymanagersfordistrictsthathadbeenfinanciallymismanaged.TheMOUprovidesfortheEAAtobeoverseenbyaneleven-memberboardprimarilyappointedbythegovernor.EasternMichiganUniversityistoserveascharterauthorizer.TheEAAwouldberesponsibleforoperatingcertainDetroitschools,andcoulddosoeitherdirectlyorthroughcharterorprivateoperators,whowouldbeabletostafftheirownschoolsandwouldreceive95percentofper-pupilrevenuefortheschools.

InNovember2012,votersrepealeda2011amendmenttotheemergencymanagerlawthathaddramaticallystrengthened thepowersofemergencymanagers.DetroitPublicSchoolsconsequentlyfiledsuittoregaincontroloftheschoolsunderthemanagementoftheEAAonthegroundsthattheemergencymanagerstatutenolongerapplied.GovernorSnyderassertsthatDetroitcannotbackoutoftheMOUwithouttheapprovaloftheEAAgoverningboard,mostofwhomwereappointedbyhim.

Inthenextlegislativesession,Republicanbillsareplannedtoreinstatethe2011emergencymanagerlawandtodeclare thattheEAAhastheauthorityofthestateschoolreformdistrictpreviouslyenactedinstatuteandcanexpandstatewide.

19

Republicansalsoplantointroduceanumberofbillsthatwouldgreatlyexpandschoolchoiceandincentivizeprivate operationofschools.EducationreformiscurrentlyamatterofgreatpoliticalcontroversyinMichiganandtheoutcome isunclear.

Recovery District Lessons

TheLouisianaRecoveryDistrictisreallytheonlyrecoverydistrictthatcanbesaidtohavecredibleresults,asTennessee’sAchievementSchoolDistricthasjustbegunoperationsandMichigan’seffortsarestillmiredinpoliticalcontroversy.Asstatedabove,RSDschoolsareinfactshowingimprovementsinachievement.

ArecentanalysisoftheRSDbytheCenteronReinventingPublicEducation(HillandMurphy,2011)revealsafewkey pointsforotherstates.First,itisabsolutelyessentialtohaveareliableaccountabilitysystemthatappropriatelyidentifies failingschoolsanddistricts,sothereisnocontroversyaboutwhatconstitutesfailure.Butthissystemshouldalsoallow someroomforflexibilityandforupwardtrendsinschools.Sincefewstateshaveanabundanceoftalent,thestatemust incentivizeandsupportaninflowoftalentfromelsewhere.Whateverthestateagencylookslike,thereshouldbeastate agencythatcancontrol,transformand/orconvertschools.Politically,thestatemustexpectoppositionandfoot-dragging –someopponentswillbeimplacable,butothersmaybepersuadable.Theorganizationneedscredibilityand“earlywins,” withacriticalmassinametropolitanarea–ruralturnaroundsaremuchmorechallenging.Finally,contractingoutmuchoftheworktothirdpartiesisessential.

TheFordhamFoundation(Smith2012)alsoexaminedtheLARSDandconsideredwhetherthemodelwouldtransfertoOhio.Theysuggestedconsideringanonprofitagency,ratherthanastateagency,fororchestratingtheturnarounds,toachievegreaterautonomy.TheytooworriedthatLARSDcouldbeanational“one-off”withsomuchnationalmoneyandtalentflowingthere,postKatrina.Theyemphasizethevalueofmovingfast,butthattoomanyearlyschoolstartup/turn-aroundfailuresareproblematic.And,theynotetheimportanceofacharismatic,insurgentleaderwhoiswillingtobearthepoliticalheat,asPaulPastorekdidinLouisiana.

Other Models of State Intervention

Thecreationofanewschooldistricttohandleturnaroundsisthemostdramatictypeofreform.Insomecases,statesdonotcreateanewschooldistrict,butinsteadcreateanothertypeoforganizationorstructurethathasthesamepurpose–over-seeingtheschoolwhileitisundergoingturnaroundandcreatinganenvironmentmostlikelytoleadtoturnaroundsuccess.

Indiana – Turnaround Academies and Lead Partners

TheIndianalegislaturepassedP.L.221in2011toupdatethestate’s1999accountabilitylawandtoaddlettergradestoschoolperformance(A-F).Thelawalsoprovidesthatschoolsintheirsixthconsecutiveyearofacademicprobationaresubjecttomandatoryturnaroundactions,determinedbythestateboardofeducation.Theseactionsmayincludeclosingtheschool,mergingitwithanearbyschool,terminatingtheprincipalandstaff,bringinginnewmanagement,and/orotheractionsrecommendedbythestatedepartmentofeducation.

Iftheschoolisnotclosedandistakenoverbythestate,itisdesignatedaTurnaroundAcademyandwillbeoperated byaTurnaroundSchoolOperator(selectedthroughastateRFPprocess).TurnaroundSchoolOperatorshavecomplete autonomyovertheoperationsoftheschool,andarenotboundbyexistingcontracts.TheTSOspendsoneyearin observationandplanning,andthentakesovertheschoolunderafour-yearcontract.Thestateboardofeducation determinestheamountnecessarytofundtheschool’soperations,andwithholdsthisamountfromtheper-pupil revenuethatwouldotherwisegototheschool’shomedistrict.TurnaroundAcademiesareoverseenbythestateoffice

20

ofschoolimprovementandturnaround.CurrentlytherearethreeauthorizedTSOs,allfor-profitentities:CharterSchoolsUSA,EdPower,andEdisonLearning.TheyoperatesixschoolsinIndianapolisandoneschoolinGary.

Ifaschoolisnotclosedandisnottakenoverbythestate,thedistrictworkswithaLeadPartnertoturntheschoolaround.LeadPartnersarealsoauthorizedbythestate,andcurrentlyincludeScholasticAchievementPartners,WirelessGeneration,TheNewTeacherProject,andVoyagerLearning.

Inusingthismodel,thestatedeliberatelychosenottoaddanadditionallayerofstatebureaucracy,asinLouisiana’sRSD.FormerstatesuperintendentTonyBennettwasapowerfulforceforreform,butlosttheelectioninNovember2012.Thenewsuperintendenthasexpressedconcernsaboutspendingstatefundstohireprivatecompaniesasoperators.

Connecticut – Commissioner’s Turnaround Network

In2012,ConnecticutestablishedtheCommissioner’sTurnaroundNetwork,operatedoutofthestate’sSchoolTurn aroundOffice.Thisnetworkwilleventuallymanageamaximumof25schools,selectedfromschoolsperformingin thebottom40percent,withpreferencegiventovolunteersandthosewhosecollectivebargainingagreementsare expiring.Theschoolturnaroundofficeentersintocontractswithnonprofitorhighereducationturnaroundoperators; thedistrictcanbeapartnerintheturnaroundortheschoolturnaroundofficeservesasatemporarytrusteeforthe school.TeachersinNetworkschoolsreapplyfortheirpositionsorreturntothehomedistrict.Whilecollectivebargainingagreementsremainineffect,theymaybemodified,anddisputesaresettledbyanarbitrator.TheCommissioner’s TurnaroundNetworkisfundedwith$25millioninnewfunds.

Thestateturnaroundofficealsohasbroadauthoritytoimplementturnaroundoptionsforschoolsinthebottom20 percentwhoarenotpartoftheCommissioner’sNetwork.Optionsincludereconstitutingschools,imposingnew curriculum,contractingwithathirdpartytooperatetheschool,ornaminganewsuperintendent.Schoolsthat reconstituteasCOMMpactschoolshaveautonomyoverbudget,curriculum,andgovernance;teachersinCOMMpactschoolsmaynegotiatemodificationstothedistrictcollectivebargainingagreement.

Townswiththelowest-performingschoolsmustdirecttheirshareofschoolfundingtothestate,whichdisbursesthefundsbacktothetownaslongasitcomplieswithstatedirectives.Inaddition,thestatehastheauthoritytoterminatelocalschoolboardsandreplacethemwithnewmembersappointedbythecommissioner.(InConnecticut,schoolsareoperatedbytowns,andtheschooldistrictisconsideredanarmofthestate.)

Delaware – Partnership Zone

Delaware’sPartnershipZone,createdaspartofitswinningRacetotheTopproposal,isanetworkof10ofthestate’slowest-performingschools.SchoolsinthePartnershipZonestaywiththeirdistricts,butaremonitoredandsupported bythestatedepartmentofeducation’sSchoolTurnaroundUnit.

DistrictswithPartnershipZoneschoolsarerequiredtoenterintoanMOUwiththedepartmentofeducationthatprovides forautonomydeemednecessarytoimplementtheturnaroundmodel.PartnershipZoneschoolsthathavecollective bargainingagreementsmust“address”provisionsintheagreementthatcouldnegativelyaffectturnaroundimplementation; ifthepartiesareunabletoagree,thestate’ssecretaryofeducationchoosesbetweenthesides.Districtsarealsorequired tocreateagovernancestructurefortheturnaroundworkthatinvolveseithersettingupadistrictturnaroundofficeto leadturnaroundorselectinganexternalleadpartnertoworkwiththeturnaroundschool.

21

New Jersey

NewJerseyrecentlyreceivedfundingfromtheBroadCentertoenterintoacontractwiththeCouncilofChiefState SchoolOfficerstodevelopsevenRegionalAchievementCenters,chargedwithworkingwith258ofthestate’slowest- performingschools.Thestate’soriginalproposaltoBroadalsorequestedfundingtosetupanAchievementSchool Districtforthestate’slowest-performingschools.Thispartoftheproposalwouldrequirenewlegislation,andhas raisedsignificantcontroversyinthestate.

New York

Thereissomeevidencethatstate-sanctionedmayoraltakeovershavehadsomepositiveresultsinsomecities(Wong andShen,2003).Makingapowerfulpoliticalactoraccountableforacity’sschoolsappearstofocusattentionina positivemanner.NewYorkCityisanextremeexampleofthisapproach,whereMayorBloomberg’sofficehastaken overthecity’sschoolswiththeblessingofstatelegislation.

What We Know Doesn’t Work – Lessons from Transformation and Other “Light Touch” Efforts

Themoreincrementalmodelsofturnaroundsalsohavelimiteddataandnoneshowdramaticsuccesses.Therearefewpositiveresultsfrommodelsthatimplementcoaching,increasetraining,orfocusonnewprograms.Whiletheymightmakeinitialsense,theyaresimplytoominortoturnaroundafailingschoolordistrict.Afailingschoolissimplynotinapositiontobenefitfromincrementaleffortsthatyieldresultsinmorefunctionalschools.Ifitwasthateasy,earlierinter-ventions,includingthetransformationmodelthatispartofthemenuoffederalturnaroundoptions,mighthaveworked.

Financial Considerations

Notsurprisingly,costsvarywidelyinstateturnaroundefforts.Tosomedegree,turnaroundtendsto“cost”whateverresourcesthestateactuallyhaveavailabletothemforthispurpose,asachievingmajorsuccesswithturnaroundsisofcoursechallenging.

Onekeycostissueiswhetherthestatealreadyhassomerelatedcapacity.Thestateisaheadofthegameifithasastatewide charterauthorizerthatcouldhelpplayanimportantroleinturnarounds.Anexcellentstatedatasystemthatprovidescredible performanceassessmentsisalsocritical.Havingthesepiecesalreadyinplacecansavesomeadditionalcosts.

Most[persistentlylow-performing]schools…arelikeorganismsthathave builtimmunities,overyearsofattemptedintervention,tothe“medicine” ofincrementalreform.Low-expectationculture,reform-fatiguedfaculty,high-percentagestaffturnover,inadequateleadership,andinsufficientauthorityforfundamentalchangeallcontributetoagenerallackof success,nationally,inturningfailingschoolsaroundandthenear-total lackofsuccessinconductingsuccessfulturnaroundatscale.

MassInsight,TheTurnaroundChallenge(2007)

22

Anotherfinancialelementiswhetherornotexistinglocalspendingcanbecapturedintheturnaroundprocess.An argumentcanbemadethatfailingschoolsarebydefinitionwastingmoney,andthismoneycouldbere-alignedto helpwithturnarounds.

Anotherissueiswhethersomeofthesecostscan,ineffect,beshiftedtothefederalgovernment.Districtsandschools thatreceivemoneyfromfederalprogramsmaybeabletousethisfundingforturnaround.Forexample,TitleIschools onturnaroundmaybeabletotapintoSchoolImprovementGrantfunds.Federalcharterschoolstart-upfundingis availableforcharterconversionsorrestarts.TitleIImoneymightbeusedtotrainteacherleadershipteams.Asthe Obamaadministrationbeginsitssecondterm,ithassignaledafocusonteacherquality,andtheremaybefinancial supportforteacherleadersinturnaroundschools.

Withinaparticularstate,anotherfundingissueiswhetherornotthelocaland/ornationalfoundationswillsupporttheturnaroundactivity.Inparticular,foundationscanbeexceptionallyusefulinjumpstartingtheturnaroundprocess.

Broad cost ranges for different state approaches

Approach Capacity Required Costs issues

NewrecoverydistrictStrongleader,Infrastructurefornewdistrict,newschoolturnaround leadership

$10millionplusfordistrict,plusindividualschoolcosts Issueswillinfluencecosts

Directlyoperatingschools Newschoolturnaroundleadership

Perschool--$1millionatoutsetplus$50,000annually

Conditionsfortransferringoperations back

Convertingschoolsto chartersoropening newcharters

Authorizer,charteroperators Perschool--$1millionatoutsetplus$50,000annually

Federalcharterstart-updollarsavailable

Coaching Coacheswithexpertise $100,000perschool per year

LittleleverageFewdemonstrated turnaround results

SEAassistancetoschools SEAexpertiseandcapacity $100,000-$500,000 per school per year

Littleleverage Fewdemonstrated turnaround results

Districtseizurebystate Strongleader,SEAexpertiseand capacity

$500,000-$3million per district

Nostatedoesmorethanthreeatatime

Assistancetodistricts Strongleader,SEAexpertiseand capacity

$100,000-$1million per district

LittleleverageFewdemonstrated turnaround results

23

Political Considerations

Thereisnodoubtthatdealingwithturnaroundschoolsanddistrictsisaverypoliticalprocess,withparents,taxpayers,schoolboards,andotherstakeholdersheavilyinvolved.Therearemanypotentialvetopoints,orplaceswherepoliticaltensionscanderailsoundeducationdecisions.

Evidencefromotherstatespointstoafewkeypoliticallessons.First,wheretherearemoredireeducationsituations, thereisalsomorepoliticalcoverforstrongeractions.Forexample,HurricaneKatrinainLouisiana,thecollapseofthe economyandschooldistrictgovernanceinDetroit,andtheschoolbankruptcyinOaklandprovidedspecialsituations thatchangedthepoliticalconditions.Eachallowedafairlystrongformofinterventionbytherespectivestates.

Second,whenthereisspecialfundingavailable,forwhateverreasons(post-KatrinaLouisianarecoveryfunds,Tennessee’s victoryinthefirstroundofRacetotheTop),thisallowsformorefundamental,extensive,andvariedturnaroundapproaches.

Third,iftheyaresavvypolitically,statesorcitiesdon’tattempttotakestrongactionstowardlargenumbersofdistricts(or schools)allatonce.Theyusetriageorotherprioritizationapproachesthatallowforsome“earlywins”andthatdemonstrate tolow-performingdistrictsasenseofseriousnessandurgency,evenwhilestateresourcesandcapacityarelimited.

Itisalsotruethatthedegreeofanypoliticalbacklashisrelatedtothebreadthandlengthofintervention.Generally,itseemsthatrelativelystrongactionsinweakcentralcityschooldistrictsaretolerated,givenlongperiodsoffailuresbythedistricts.Toothlessassistanceisofcourseokayinmostplaces,asitdisruptsalmostnothing.Butoppositionappearstogrowinproportiontonumberoflocalitiesaffected–somethingtobeawareofinastate-wideeffort.Whenstateshavesteppedintorepairadistrict’sfinancialsituation,asinCaliforniaandTexas,therehavebeensomeimprovementsinstudentachievement.Butprematureabandonmentofthedistrictduetopoliticalpressureisarealconcern,asappearstohavehappenedinOakland,California.

Whilemostofthesepoliticalconcernsareaboutmovingtoofastortooforcefully,theremaybecircumstanceswhenparentswanttopushformajorschoolturnaroundefforts.So-called“parenttrigger”lawshavebeenpassedinCalifornia,Texas,MississippiandLouisiana(andwererecentlyconsideredin18otherstates).Theselawstypicallyprovidethatifamajorityofparentsinapoorlyperformingschoolsignapetition,theschoolwillbeclosed,haveitsleadershipchanged,orwillbeconvertedtoacharter(thelawsvaryontheconsequences).ThisapproachhasbeenusedmostaggressivelyinCalifornia,withparentgroupsactiveinpushingpetitionsforchange.Coloradohasarelativelynarrowversionofaparenttriggerlaw,allowingstudents,parents,and/orstaffatadistrict-authorizedcharterschooltomovetheirschoolfrom districtcontroltothestate’sCharterSchoolInstitute.

Finally,aswiththeRSDmodel,realsuccesswithotherapproachesalsoseemstorequireacharismaticinsurgentleaderwillingandabletobearpoliticalheat.SteveAdamowskihasfulfilledthisrolefairlywellinConnecticut,andChrisCerfmightinNewJersey.TonyBennett,ofcourse,wasvotedoutofthisroleinIndiana.Forsucha“czar”tobesuccessful,theyusuallyrequireunwaveringsupportfromapopularpolitician,typicallythestate’sgovernor.

State Legislation Needed

Generally,statelegislationforturnaroundstendstoberelativelysimpleanddirect.Ittypicallybuildsupontheexistingaccountabilityandcharterlawsofthestate.SomelegislationsimplyreassertstheintrinsicpoweroftheStateBoardtoberesponsibleforK-12education,evenwhenthateducationisprovidedbydistricts.Statesarealsorecognizingtheneedtoexpresslyprovideautonomyforturnaroundleaderssotheycanimplementthedramaticchangesneeded.

24

Somelegislationdoescreatenewpowersandnewinstitutions.ThisistrueoftheRecoverySchoolDistrictinLouisiana,theAchievementSchoolDistrictinTennessee,andtheschoolreform/redesigndistrictinMichigan.Again,thedirenatureofschoolfailuresintheseareas,combinedsometimeswithopportunity(theRacetotheTopcompetition),helpedtheselegislativeeffortsmoveforward.

The Unique Issues Presented by Rural Turnarounds

Themostpublicizedapproachtoturnarounds,onethatinvolvesbringinginoutsidegroupsandpossiblycharterschool operators,ismostlikelytoworkinurbanandsuburbanareas.Thisapproachpresentsamuchbiggerchallengein ruralareas,whereitisquitedifficulttoattractcharterprovidersandnewteachertalent.Ruralareasalsofacehigh transportationcostsforcoachingorotherassistance.Despitethelowernumbersofstudentsinvolved,adistrict takeoverand/ordirectoperationcancostalmostasmuchinasmallerruraldistrictasinabiggerdistrict.

Asaresult,somestatesareconsideringrebuildinglow-performingruralschoolsusingtechnology-heavymodels.There isnogoodevidenceonthisyet.

Returning Schools to Their Districts

Ifastatepullsaturnaroundschooloutofitsdistrict,andbeatstheoddsbysuccessfullyturningitaround,thereisanissueaboutwhathappensnext.Returningittothedistrictmightmakesense,butnotifproblemsremaininthedistrictsthathelpedcausedtheschoolfailureinthefirstplace.

InLouisiana,aftersuccessintheRSD,therewasconsiderablepressuretoreturntheschoolstolocalcontrol.Thatpressure isnowsomewhatdiminished,andtheremightbeanoptionforschoolstochoosetostayintheRSDindefinitely.In Tennessee,itisexpectedthatschoolswillreturntolocalcontrol,andthereisnotaclearoptionforschoolstoremain independent.InMichigan’svolatileenvironment,theDetroitschoolboardhassuedtoregaincontrolofitsschools. Returntodistrictcontrolshouldbehandledcautiously.AfterstateinterventioninOakland,California,forfinancial reasons,thereturnofthedistricttothelocalboardwastedmuchofwhathadbeenaccomplished.

Lessons for Colorado

Pullingalloftheseactivitiesandideasfromotherstatestogether,therearesomeissuesthatColoradopolicymakersmustconsiderinmovingforwardwithschoolanddistrictturnarounds.

First,Colorado’sconstitutionrequiresthatthestate’sauthorityforoverseeingthepublicschoolsbebalancedwiththepowerofthelocalschoolboardtocontrolinstructionforschoolsinitsdistrict.SomeofthesweepingexercisesofstatepowerseeninotherstatesmaynotbepossibleinColorado,orthestatemayneedtoproceedmorecarefully.Withthatsaid,localcontrolshouldnotbeusedtoabsolvethestateofitsobligationtoensurequalityschools,norshouldthestate’soversightauthoritybeusedtotramplelocalcontrolwherethereisnoreasontodoso.

CDEanditspartnersinturnaroundwillneedpoliticalsupporttopushtheschoolturnaroundagendahard.Thestateshouldconsiderwhetherthetoolsandpowersthatarealreadyinplacearesufficient,andwhetheranynewlegislationisneededtofurtherstrengthenorclarifythestate’sabilitytointerveneinturnaroundsituations.Inparticular,thestateshouldconsiderthelanguageofpoliciesfromotherstatesthatwouldbepermissibleinalocalcontrolstateandwouldmakesenseforColorado.

ColoradohasanelectedStateBoardofEducationthatappointstheCommissionerofEducation.Thisistrueinsomeof theotherstates,butnotall.Thismayleadtopoliticaldynamicsthatarerelativelyunique.Ontheonehand,askingelected

25

policymakerstoapprovepoliticallychallengingdecisions,suchasclosingschoolsorremovingdistrictaccreditation,maynotbeveryeffective.Ontheotherhand,itmaybethatplacingelectedofficialsfromacrossthestateinchargeofthesedecisions,andsettingupaninfrastructurethatensuresthattheyreceivecomprehensiveandaccurateinformationaboutfailingschoolsanddistricts,mayitselfoperatetoprovideessentialpoliticalcoverforturnarounds.

Theavailabilityofresourcesfordistrictsandschoolssubjecttotakeovermightreducepoliticalpressure,creatingsomething ofa“grandbargain.”ItisunlikelythatanewRacetotheTopcompetitionwilloccuranytimesoon.However,following Connecticut’sleadandcreatingaCommissioner’sNetworkinwhichschoolsapplyforentranceandareprovidedwith additionalresourcesandsupport,mightbeagoodapproach.Theresourcesrequiredtoconvinceschoolsanddistrictstoaggressivelypursuetheirowndisruptionarenottrivial,however.

Coloradowillneedtoconsideritsabilitytoattractenoughgoodcharteroperatorsandotherturnaroundpartners. Louisiana’ssuccessisdueinlargeparttothenationaltalentpoolthatflockedthereafterHurricaneKatrina,excited bytheabilitytobuildanurbanschooldistrictessentiallyfromthegroupup.

Finally,successfulstateturnaroundinitiativeshavebenefitedfromcharismaticleaderssuchasChrisAdamowskiin Connecticut,ChrisCerfinNewJersey,TonyBennettinIndiana,andPaulPastorekinLouisiana.WhowillbeColorado’s faceforturnarounds?OrwouldColoradobebetterservedbypullingtogetheradiversecoalitionofsupportersthat iscapableofmovingtheworkforwardevenasleadersturnover?

26

TURNARoUND IN CoLoRADo – ThE PoLICY CoNTEXT

Theprevioussectiondiscussedtheimportanceofasoundandflexiblestatepolicyframework,lookingatthoseinotherstates.ThissectionwillreviewthecurrentpolicyframeworkinColoradoforidentifyingandtakingactionwithrespecttolow-performingschoolsanddistricts.Itdiscussestheoptionsthatarecurrentlyavailableandmakessuggestionsforpolicychangesthatcouldimprovethefeasibilityandsuccessoftheseoptions.

Balancing Local Control and State oversight

OneimportantelementofColorado’spolicycontextistheconstitutionalbalancebetweentherightoflocalschoolboardstocontrolinstructionintheirschools(Colo.Const.Art.IX,Sec.15)andtheresponsibilityoftheStateBoard ofEducationforgeneralsupervisionofthestate’sschools(Colo.Const.Art.IX,Sec.1).Whileotherstatesoftenrefer toatraditionoflocalcontrol,Coloradohasthistraditionenshrinedinthestateconstitution–oneofonlysixstates inthecountrytodoso.Thishasimplicationsfortherespectiverolesofthestateanditsdistrictsthatarenotpresent inotherstates.

Forexample,inConnecticut,thestatehastheabilitytoessentiallyfirethemembersofaschoolboardandappointtheirreplacements.ThiswouldnotbepossibleinColorado.Anothercommonpolicyinotherstatesisarequirementthatlocaldistrictstransferallfundingforstudentsinschoolsthataretakenovertothestateorrecoverydistrict.ItisunlikelythatasimilarpolicywouldbepossibleinColorado,atleastwithrespecttolocalfunds,asthestatesupremecourthasruledthatthestateconstitutionrequiresthatlocaldistrictshavecontroloverlocallyraisedfundsandthosefundscannotbetransferredtoanentityoverwhichthedistricthasnocontrol.SeeOwens v. Colorado Congress of Parents, Teachers, and Students,92P.3d933(Colo.2004);Lujan v. Colorado State Board of Education,649P.2d1005(Colo.1982).

However,therearelimitationsonlocalcontrolthatspecificallyrelatetothestate’sresponsibilityforgeneralsupervisionoftheschools.InBoard of Education v. Booth,984P.2d639(Colo.1999),alocalschooldistrictchallengedtheprovisionsoftheCharterSchoolActthatallowedtheStateBoardofEducationtoapproveacharterschoolapplicationthathadbeentwicerejectedbythelocalboard.Thestatesupremecourtheldthatbecausethelawstillallowedforlocal negotiationoftheactualtermsofthecharter,thisrepresentedanappropriatebalancingofstateandlocalauthority.Similarly,inBoulder Valley School District v. Colorado State Board of Education, 217P.3d918(Colo.App.2009),an appellatecourtupheldtheauthorityofthestateCharterSchoolInstitutetoauthorizeschoolslocatedintheboundary ofadistrictthatdidnothaveexclusivecharteringauthority.Nothinginthestate’sconstitution,wrotethecourt,prohibited thecreationofasysteminwhichsomeschoolswerecontrolledbythestateratherthanbylocaldistricts.

Thus,inColorado,thestate’sturnaroundinitiativemustrepresentanappropriatebalanceoflocalcontrolandstate oversightresponsibility.Apolicythatdoesnotstrikethisbalancewillnotstand.AstheOwens court said, the choice isbetweenamendingtheconstitutionorcreatingaprogramthatmeetsthemandatesoftheconstitution.

overview of S.B. 163 Accountability Framework

TurnaroundsinColoradoarepartoftheoverallschoolanddistrictaccountabilityframeworkestablishedbyS.B.163. AmoredetailedoverviewofthestatutoryaccountabilityframeworkiscontainedinAppendixB.Generallyspeaking, S.B.163placesschoolsanddistrictsareplacedincategoriesbasedontheirperformancewithrespecttostudent academicachievement,studentacademicgrowth,academicgrowthgapsamonggroupsofstudents,andforschools anddistrictsservinghighschoolstudents,indicatorsrelatedtopost-secondaryandworkforcereadiness.Placementin thesecategoriesisdeterminedbythepercentageoftotalpossiblepointsearnedbytheschoolordistrict.Schoolsand districtsarethenresponsiblefordevelopingandimplementingplanstoguidetheirstrategiesforimprovementover thenexttwoyears.

27

S.B.163setsupparallelbutnotidenticalaccountabilitystructuresforschoolsanddistricts.Thisisnotthecaseinmostotherstates,wheretheaccountabilitysystemleadingtostatetakeoverisprimarilydirectedatschools.Asaresult,thisreportwillseparatelydiscussS.B.163’sprovisionsrelatingtoschoolsanddistrictswhererelevant.Itshouldalsobenotedthatadistrict’soverallperformancecanbehighevenifithasseveralpoorly-performingschools;conversely,adistrict’slowratingdoesnotmeanthatallschoolsinthatdistrictarepoorperformers.

Schoolperformanceismeasuredbythestate’sSchoolPerformanceFramework.Basedonitsperformance,eachschool isassignedatypeofimprovementplan.1

Fordistricts,accreditationstatusisdeterminedbyperformanceonthestate’sDistrictPerformanceFramework. Therearefivecategoriesofaccreditation:

S.B.163’slanguageprovidesthatundermostcircumstances,schoolsanddistrictswillanalyzetheirowndataand determineappropriateimprovementstrategieswithminimaloversightorinterventionfromthestate.However,schoolsanddistrictsassignedTurnaroundPlansmustchoosetheirstrategiesfromastatutorylistofprescribedinterventions,anddistrictsareresponsibleforensuringthattheplansareimplemented.Attheverylowestlevelofperformance,and

1Districtsmayimposetougherstandardsontheirschools.

Percentage of total possible points received Plan required

Elementaryandmiddleschools–59%orabove Highschools–60%orabove Performance

Elementaryandmiddleschools–between46and58% Highschools–between47and59% Improvement

Elementaryandmiddleschools–between37and46% Highschools–between33and46% PriorityImprovement

Elementaryandmiddleschools–lessthan37% Highschools–lessthan33% Turnaround

Percentage of total possible points received Accreditation status

80%orabove AccreditedwithDistinction

Between64and80% Accredited

Between52and64% AccreditedwithImprovementPlan

Between42and52% AccreditedwithPriorityImprovementPlan

Below42% AccreditedwithTurnaroundPlan

28

aftertheschooland/orthedistricthashadtheopportunitytoimprovebutfailstodoso,thestatecanmandatedramaticinterventions.TheStateBoardofEducationcandecidetoremoveadistrict’saccreditationandrequirethatthedistrictundertakeprescribedactionstobeeligibleforreaccreditation.Forschools,theStateBoardofEducationdeterminesanappropriaterestructuringoption.2

Overall,thisframeworkseemstorepresentanintentionallegislativeefforttobalancestateoversightauthorityandlocalcontrol.Thestate’soversightauthorityisarguablymeaninglessifithasnoabilitytointerveneinchronically-under-performingschoolsanddistrictsafterthoseschoolsanddistrictshavehadtheopportunitytoturntheirperformancearound.Indeed,asystemofstateaccreditationofdistrictsisrequiredbyfederaleducationlaw,andhavingsuchasystemnecessarilycontemplatesthepotentialremovalofaccreditationwhenperformancedoesnotmeetstandards.

Identifying Schools and Districts Eligible for State-Mandated Turnaround Interventions

Theprocessbywhichschoolsanddistrictsareplacedindifferentperformancecategoriesappearstohavecredibilityacrossthestate,averyimportantfactorineffectivestateaccountabilitysystems.TheSchoolandDistrictFrameworksusedtomeasureperformancearegenerallyviewedasreasonable,andschoolsanddistrictsareallowedtoappealanyplacementwithwhichtheydisagree.Asaresult,thisidentificationprocessislikelytobedeemedanappropriateuse ofthestate’ssupervisorypower.

Thoseschoolsanddistrictsthataresubjecttostate-mandatedinterventionsfallintotwocategories:thosethathavefailedtomakesubstantialprogressunderaTurnaroundPlan,andthosethathavespentfiveconsecutiveyearsinPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundstatus.Thesecategoriesaresimilartothosefoundinotherstates’turnaroundpolicies,inwhichthestateisgivenimmediateauthoritytointerveneintheverylowest-performingschools(suchasinLouisianaandTennessee)and/orinschoolsthathaveprovenunabletoliftthemselvesoutofcrisisafteraprescribednumberofyears(suchasinIndiana).

InColorado,theStateBoardofEducationhasdeterminedthatschoolsanddistrictsfailtomake“substantialprogress”ontheirTurnaroundPlanswhentheyfailtoimproveonperformanceindicatorsorfailtomeettheimplementationbenchmarksandinterimtargetsandmeasuresintheTurnaroundPlan.BecauseS.B.163requiresTurnaroundPlanstobedesignedsothatsuccessfulimplementationwilllifttheschoolordistrictoutoftheturnaroundcategoryintothenexthighestcategory,schoolsassignedTurnaroundPlansforasecondorthirdconsecutiveyeararebydefinitioneligibleforimmediaterestructuringunderS.B.163.CDEisnotcurrentlyinterpretingitsauthorityinthisway.3

Thesecondcategoryofschoolsanddistrictseligibleforstate-mandatedturnaroundinterventionsarethoseschoolsanddistrictsthathavebeenplacedinthelowesttwoperformancecategoriesformorethanfiveconsecutiveyears.AccordingtoS.B.163,theStateBoardofEducationmustinterveneafterschoolshaveimplementedtheirfifthconsecutivePriority

2S.B.163usestheterm“restructuring,”whichalsoisusedinfederalturnaroundlawbutinaslightlydifferentway.Thisreportusesthat termasitisusedinS.B.163.

3ThelanguageofS.B.163withrespecttoschoolsstates:“Ifapublicschoolfailstomakeadequateprogressunderitsturnaroundplanorcontinues tooperateunderapriorityimprovementorturnaroundplanforacombinedtotaloffiveconsecutiveyears,thecommissionershallassignthestate reviewpaneltocriticallyevaluatethepublicschool’sperformanceanddeterminewhethertorecommend[oneormoreofthelistedoptions].” C.R.S.sec.22-11-210(5)(a).TheStateBoardofEducationthentakesthoserecommendationsintoaccountand“shalldeterminewhichofthe actions…thelocalschoolboardforadistrictpublicschoolortheinstituteforaninstitutecharterschoolshalltakeanddirectthelocalschool boardorinstituteaccordingly.”C.R.S.sec.22-11-210(5)(b).Similarly,adistrictmayloseaccreditationifithasfailedtomakesubstantialprogress underitsturnaroundplan,hasbeenaccreditedwithpriorityplancategoryoflowerforfiveconsecutiveschoolyears,orhassubstantiallyfailed tocomplywithfinancialmanagementandreportingrequirementsofArticles44and45oftheSchoolCode,andlossofaccreditationisnecessary toprotecttheinterestofstudentsandparents.SeeC.R.S.22-11-209(1).

29

ImprovementorTurnaroundPlan,andafterdistrictshavebeenassignedtheaccreditationratingofAccreditedwith PriorityImprovementorTurnaroundPlanforthefifthconsecutiveyear.

Moreinformationabouttheschoolsanddistrictsinthesetwocategoriescanbefoundinthenextsectionandin AppendicesBandC.

Failing Schools: State-Mandated Restructuring options

InColorado,aschoolthatmeetsthecriteriaforstate-mandatedturnaroundinterventionsissubjecttooneormore ofthefollowingstatutoryinterventions:

•Managementbyaprivateorpublicentityotherthanthedistrict

•Conversiontoacharterschool

•DesignationasanInnovationSchool

•Forschoolsthatarealreadycharterschools,replacementofthecharteroperatororthegoverningboard

•Forcharterschools,revocationofcharter

•Closure

TheStateBoardofEducationdecideswhichaction/sareappropriate,takingintoconsiderationtherecommendations oftheStateReviewPanelestablishedbyS.B.163,anddirectsthelocalschoolboard(orCharterSchoolInstitute,if applicable)accordingly.

30

S.B. 163’s process for state intervention in failing schools

SchoolfailstomakesubstantialprogressonTurnaroundPlan

StateReviewPanelpresents recommendationsto

CommissionerandState BoardofEducation

Commissioner assigns State Review Panel to evaluate the school and recommend selection of one or more statutory restructuring options:

• Managementbyaprivateorpublicentity Conversiontoacharterschool

• DesignationasanInnovationSchool

• Forcharterschools,replacementofcharter operatororgoverningboard

• Forcharterschools,revocationofcharter

• Closure

oRSchoolperformanceisin

bottomtwocategories(Priority ImprovementorTurnaround) forfiveconsecutiveyears

StateBoardofEducation determinesactionstobe taken and directs school boardtoactaccordingly

31

Management by a private or public entity other than the district

Thisisverybroadlanguagethatpermitsthestatetoplacetheschoolundermanagementofathirdparty.Thisthirdpartycouldbeaprivateornonprofitorganization,anotherhigher-performingschooldistrictorBOCES,anewrecoverydistrict,aunitoftheColoradoDepartmentofEducation,theCharterSchoolInstitute,oradifferentstateorlocalgovernmententity(suchasamayor’soffice).4ForthoseinColoradoadvocatingforastaterecoveryorganizationthattakescontroloffailingschools,thisisthelanguagethatcouldallowthattohappen.

Thestatutedoesnotspecifyanycriteriaforselectingthethird-partymanagementorganization,orspecifywhoselects orcontractswiththeorganization.ItstatesonlythatthisisanoptionthattheStateBoardcandirectthelocalschool boardtotake.

However,becausethestatutespecificallystatesthatmanagementistobetakenawayfromthedistrict,thisislikelyanoptiontobeselectedundercircumstancesinwhichthedistrictisnotinterestedinorparticularlycapableofdirectingturnaroundreformitself.Thisconclusionisbolsteredbyreviewingthedifferencesbetweenthestatutorylanguage directingthirdpartymanagementofthedistrictand/oritsschoolsduetolossofdistrictaccreditation,inwhichthe arrangementrequirestheagreementoftheschooldistrict,andthelanguagedirectingthirdpartymanagementofschoolsasaresultofschoolrestructuring,inwhichthelanguagesimplystatesthatthethirdpartymustbeanentityotherthanthedistrictandhasnolanguagerequiringdistrictagreement.CompareC.R.S.sec.22-11-209(2)(a)(I)(B)withsec.22-11-210(5)(a)(i).

Thus,abetteroutcomeseemsmorelikelyifthestatedirectsanappropriateprovidertoplaythisrole,takingintoaccounttheschoolanddistrictcircumstances.Forexample,thestatecoulddirectthattheschoolbeplacedintoastatewiderecoveryorganization.Orthestatecouldselectfromago-to-listofthird-partyoperatorscapableofprovidingeffectiveturnaroundoptions,havingdevelopedthelistinadvancetoensurethatthelistincludedavarietyofproviderstomeetdifferenttypesofschoolneedsacrossthestate.

Onepotentialchallengeforthisoptionisthatthestatutedoesnotnecessarilyprovidefortheautonomousconditionsneededforthethird-partymanagertobeabletoimplementdramaticreforms.Otheroptions,suchasconversiontocharterschoolorInnovationSchool,automaticallyinvolvegrantsofatleastsomeautonomy.Itwouldmakenosenseforathird-partymanagertotakeovercontroloftheschoolbutstillbesubjecttoexistingcollectivebargainingagreementprovisions,staffingchoices,ordistrictregulations.

S.B.163TurnaroundInterventionOption:ManagementbyaThirdParty

“…Withregardtoadistrictpublicschoolthatisnotacharterschool,thatthedistrictpublicschoolshallbemanagedbyaprivateorpublicentityotherthantheschooldistrict…”

CRS22-11-210(5)(a)(I)

4AlthougharecentStudentsFirstreportcharacterizesColoradopolicyasnotpermittingmayoralcontrol,wereadthebroadlanguageofS.B.163 aspermittingmayoralmanagementofturnaroundschools.

32

Thisissuecouldbeaddressedbycombiningthethird-partymanageroptionwiththecharterconversionoption–the thirdpartymanagerselectsacharteroperatortomanagetheday-to-dayoperationsoftheschool,andthecharter operatorwouldhavetheautonomygiventoallcharteroperators.However,S.B.163directstheStateBoardtoselect “one”oftherestructuringoptions,whichmeansthatcombiningoptionsmaynotbepermissible.S.B.163couldbe amendedtoclarifytheconditionsunderwhichthird-partymanagerswilloperate,whichcouldincludelanguagemodeled fromotherstatestatutesthatprovidethatschoolsfacingmandatoryinterventionsarenotsubjecttoexistingcontracts ordistrictrules,andthatthird-partyoperatorshavetheabilitytorequestwaiversfromthestateasneededtoimplement theirturnaroundstrategies.

Thestatutealsodoesnotspecifyhowtheturnaroundmanagementproviderwillbefunded.Asdiscussedpreviously,afewstatesdirectper-pupilfundingattributabletostudentsattheschooltobedivertedtotherecoverydistrictorthird-partyprovider.Otherstateshaveprovidedstateturnaroundfunding,and/orspecifiedthatfederalSchool ImprovementGrantsaretobeusedforthispurpose.ColoradoSupremeCourtprecedentwouldseemtoprohibita requirementthatdistrictssendlocally-raisedfundstoanotherentity,evenincircumstanceswhereaschoolisfailing. SeeOwens v. Colorado Congress, supra.

Finally,thestatutealsodoesnotdiscusshowtheschoolwould,ifever,transitionfromthethird-partymanagerbackto districtcontrol.Otherstatestypicallysetboundariesonthisprocess.Giventhatthelocaldistrictislosingcontrolover theschool(potentiallyaninfringementonitsrightoflocalcontrol),thereshouldbeaprovisionthatletsboththestate andthedistrictknowtheprocessforreturningtheschooltothedistrictonceperformancehasbeenimproved.

Someexamplesofpotentialthird-partymanagemententities,andtheirpotentialapplicabilitytodifferentschool situations,canbefoundinAppendixI.

Conversion to a charter school

TheuseofcharterschooloperatorstorunturnaroundschoolshasbeenparticularlyeffectiveinLouisiana,andisan activeoptionformoststateswithstrongstateturnaroundpolicies.ThisoptionisparticularlyattractiveinColorado, whichhasalonghistoryofstrongcharterschooloperatorsandanindependentstatewideauthorizerintheCharter SchoolInstitute.

S.B.163TurnaroundInterventionOption-CharterSchoolConversion

“…Withregardtoadistrictpublicschool,thatthedistrictpublicschoolbeconvertedtoacharterschoolifitisnotalreadyauthorizedasacharterschool…”

C.R.S.22-11-210(5)

“Wheneverthestateboarddeterminesthatitisnecessaryto recommendconversionofapublicschooltoanindependent publicschoolpursuanttotheprovisionsofsection22-210(5), thestateboardshallissuearequestforproposalspursuantto subsection(2)ofthissectionandsupervisetheappointmentof areviewcommitteepursuanttosection22-30.5-304.”

33

S.B.163allowstheStateBoardtodirecttheconversionofaturnaroundschooltoacharterschool.Colorado’sCharterSchoolsActprovidesfortheauthorizationofthreeseparatetypesofcharterschools.Thefirstisadistrict-authorizedcharterschool,whichoperatesunderacharterwithaschooldistrict.ThesecondtypeofcharterschoolisauthorizedbythestateCharterSchoolInstitute(CSI).CSImayauthorizecharterschoolslocatedindistrictsthathavenotappliedforandreceivedexclusivecharteringauthorityfromtheStateBoardofEducation.Finally,independentcharterschoolsmaybecreatedwhenaschoolhasbeenpersistentlylow-performing.5Inthecaseofanindependentcharterschool,theschool’snewoperatorisselectedthroughanRFPprocessconductedbytheStateBoardofEducation,andmaybeanytypeofentity.Thelocalschoolboardthennegotiateswiththeselectedoperatoronthetermsofthecharter,sothat thecharterisultimatelybetweentheoperatorandthedistrict.6

ThelanguageofS.B.163appearstodirectthatconversionofalow-performingschooltoacharterschoolwouldoccur throughtheindependentcharterschoolprocess.Thismaynotbethemostefficientprocedureavailable,sinceitrequires arathercumbersomeRFPprocessandplacestheStateBoardinthemiddleoftheconversion.Theoneschoolconverted toanindependentcharterschoolusingthisprocess,ColeMiddleSchoolinDenver,wentthroughalongandpainful process.7Inaddition,independentcharterschoolsremainunderthejurisdictionoftheirhomedistricts,whichmaynot alwaysbedesireable.

WesuggestinsteadthatcharterschoolconversionsoccurringaspartofturnaroundresultinschoolsthatarecharteredeitherbydistrictsorbytheCharterSchoolInstitute.8Higher-functioningdistrictsmightwanttouseacharterschoolsaspartofaportfoliostrategytoattractnewproviderstooperatelow-performingschools,asisthecaseinDenver.Incaseswhereschoolsarelocatedindistrictsthatarenotwell-situatedtoberesponsibleauthorizers,theCharterSchoolInstitutecouldbetappedtoserveastheauthorizer–essentiallyservingasathird-partyrecoverymanager/districtforlow-performingcharterschoolsacrossthestate.Thiscouldbemadeautomaticbyanamendmentremovingexclusivecharteringauthorityfromdistrictsthathavebeeninturnaroundorprioritystatusforthreeormoreconsecutiveyears.

OtheroptionsavailableintheActthatcouldbemoreexplicitlytiedtoturnaroundincludetheabilityoftheCharterSchoolInstitute,asanorganizationrepresentingcharterschools,torequestthattheStateBoardofEducationremoveadistrict’sexclusivecharteringauthority.C.R.S.22-30.5-504(7.5).ThiswouldthenpermitCSItoauthorizecharterschoolsinthedistrict.

Inshort,theCharterSchoolsActcontainsaplethoraofwaystousecharterconversionsastoolsforturnaround,buttheyareconfusingandnotoptimallyaligned.

Designation as an Innovation School

TheInnovationSchoolsActprovidesthatschoolsmayapplytotheirdistrictsforInnovationSchoolstatus,andthatthe applicationmustshowevidenceofstaffsupportfortheapplicationand,wheretheapplicationseekstowaivecollective bargainingagreementprovisions,evidenceofstaffsupportthroughasecretvote.TheInnovationSchoolsActwasoriginally intendedasawayforschoolsthatwishedtoengageininnovativepracticestotaketheinitiativetodoso,providedthe

5Thisprovision,CRS22-30.5-301etseq.,hasbeenineffectsince2001.6Itshouldbenotedthatrecentlegislation(S.B.12-067)prohibitsschoolboardsandtheCharterSchoolInstitutefromenteringintocharter contractswithfor-profitoperators.Instead,afor-profitorganizationcanonlyenterintoacontractforserviceswithaschool,andonlyifthe charterschoolgoverningboardisindependentofthefor-profitentity.

7SeeAndersonandDeCesare(2006)forlessonslearnedfromthisexperience.8Itisimportanttorememberthattheschoolwouldberunonaday-to-daybasisbyacharteroperator,notthedistrictortheCharter SchoolInstitute.

34

districtandschoolstaffwassupportiveofthechange.AlthoughS.B.163reliesheavilyonInnovationSchoolsasatoolfor turnaround,thatacthasnotbeenamendedtoprovideoptimalflexibilityforthatpurpose.

First,InnovationSchoolsarebydefinitiontiedtotheirdistricts.Itisthedistrict’sapplicationtotheStateBoardof Educationthatallowsthedistricttoseekwaiverstoallowtheschooltoactautonomously.Withoutdistrictsupport,theschoolcannotgainInnovationSchoolstatus(whichmustbegrantedbythelocalschoolboard)andhasnoavenuetogetthenecessarywaiversfromtheStateBoardofEducation.Inotherwords,theInnovationSchoolActasitcurrentlystandsdoesnothavetheabilitytoconveyautonomyonschoolswithoutthesupportoftheirdistricts,andsoisnotveryusefulinthecaseofschoolslocatedindistrictsthatdonotsupporttheschool’sefforts.

Withthatsaid,itcanbeanticipatedthatsomedistrictsinColoradowillwanttoactivelyengageinturnaroundinitiatives withtheirschools,andtheInnovationSchoolsActprovidesanexcellentroutetoschoolautonomyinthatsituation.The mostvisibleturnaroundinitiativesinColoradotodayarethoseledbytheDenverPublicSchools,whichhasengaged nationally-recognizedleadturnaroundpartnerstoworkcloselywithfailingschoolslocatedintwoInnovationZones inthedistrict.DPS’turnaroundworkissophisticatedandaggressive,andshouldbetoutedasamodelforthose districtswiththeinclinationandcapacitytodirecttheirownturnaroundinitiatives.Theabilitytohavedistrictsuse theInnovationSchoolsActasaplatformforturnaroundsintheirdistrictsisarealstrengthofColoradopolicy.

However,asdiscussedabove,aturnaroundleadershipteammusthavetheabilitytoremovestaffwhoarenoton boardwiththedramaticchangesneededforturnaround.Assuch,requiringstaffsupportfordesignationofan InnovationSchoolwilloftennotbeappropriateinaturnaroundsituation.Inaddition,requiringstaffsupportfora newschooltoopenasanInnovationSchoolwouldtakeawayoneoftheavenuestoprovidingautonomyforanew schoolstartresultingfromaclosure.IfstaffvotesarerequiredforInnovationSchooldesignationinturnaround situations,thatlikelymeansthatthoseschoolswouldinsteadbeconvertedintocharterschoolsastheonlyreliable avenuetoturnaroundleadershipautonomy.

TheDenverClassroomTeachersAssociationhassuedtheDenverPublicSchoolsoverthedesignationofeightexistingandtwonewschoolsasInnovationSchoolswithoutevidenceofstaffsupport.ThatcaseiscurrentlypendinginDenverdistrictcourt.9AttorneyGeneralJohnSuthershasissuedanadvisoryopinionstatingthatlocalschoolboardsandtheStateBoardofEducationhaveauthoritytograntwaiversforaschoolthathasnotyetopened,eventhoughthestaff votesotherwisewouldnotoccur.Hereasonedthattorequireotherwisewouldbecontrarytotheinnovationand flexibilitypromotedbytheAct.10ThisconclusionwouldseemtobesupportedbyC.R.S.sec.22-32-109,whichallows thelocalboardofeducationtodelegateemploymentdecisionstoadesignatedInnovationSchool.SeealsoC.R.S. 22-32-110(1)(g)(allowingboardtodelegateauthoritytoterminateemployeestoInnovationSchool).

9 Denver Classroom Teachers Association v. Denver Public Schools,CaseNo.11CV4215.10AttorneyGeneralOpinionNo.12-01,issuedJanuary23,2012.

S.B.163TurnaroundOption–InnovationSchools

“…ThatthedistrictpublicschoolbegrantedstatusasanInnovationSchoolpursuanttosection22-32.5-105…”

C.R.S.22-11-210(5)(a)(IV)

35

AnotherpossibilitytoconsideristheuseoftheInnovationSchoolsActtograntautonomytoaschoolorgroupofschoolsthatisplacedunderthemanagementofarecoverydistrict,shouldColoradodecidetocreateone.

WerecommendthatthelanguageoftheInnovationSchoolsActbeclarifiedtostreamlinetheprocessfordesignation whenthatdesignationoccursaspartofaturnaroundplan.Theseclarificationsshouldstateexplicitlythatdistrict rulesandcollectivebargainingagreementprovisionsfallingintocategoriesaffectingstaffing,scheduling,curricularand instructionalpractices,andotherkeyschooloperationaldecisions,areautomaticallywaivedwhenInnovationSchool designationoccursunderaturnaroundplan.Inaddition,theprovisionrequiringlocalschoolboardapprovalofan InnovationSchoolapplicationshouldberevised,sothatdistrictscannotunilaterallyblockInnovationSchooldesignation. TheInnovationSchooltoolwillworkmuchbetterwhendistrictsaresupportiveofthechanges,butdistrictsshouldnot bepermittedtobeanobstaclewithoutcause.

Thesechangescouldoccurbyamendmentsthatprovidethataschoolonpriorityorturnaroundstatusforthree consecutiveyears,forexample,isautomaticallyaccordedInnovationSchoolstatusormembershipinanInnovation Zone,notwithstandingotherproceduressetforthintheAct.Inaddition,newschoolsthatareopenedinconnection withtheclosureoffailingschools–asrestarts,forexample–shouldbepermittedtoopenasInnovationSchools.

TheseamendmentswouldprovideunequivocalsupportfortheuseoftheInnovationSchoolsstatusasakeywayfor turnaroundschoolleaderstogaintheautonomytheyneedtoquicklyputdramaticchangesinplace.IftheInnovation SchoolsActisnotinterpretedinthisway,itbecomesamuchlessusefultoolforturnaround.Whileitispossiblethatthis optionmaybesubjecttoabusebydistrictsthataresimplylookingtofreethemselvesfromannoyingcollectivebargaining agreementprovisions,thispossibilityisoutweighedbytheneedtoaccordturnaroundschoolleadersthenecessary autonomysothatfailingschoolshaveachanceofdramaticallyincreasingperformance.

Restructuring Failing Charter Schools

Inthecaseofafailingschoolthatisalreadyacharterschool,S.B.163providesthattheStateBoardofEducationcandirectthatthecharteroperatorbereplacedand/orthatthegoverningboardofthecharterschoolbereplaced.

Closure/Revocation of Charter

Finally,S.B.163permitstheStateBoardofEducationtodirectthatthefailingschoolbeclosed,or,inthecaseofafailingcharterschool,thattheschool’scharterberevoked(whichresultsinclosure).Inturnaroundsacrossthecountry,schoolclosureisoftenpairedwithrestartingwithanewschooloperator.S.B.163issilentaboutwhethertheStateBoardofEducationcandirectrestartaspartofclosure.11

Closingaschoolimpliesthatstudentswillattendandbebetterservedbyanotherschool.Thismaynotbeanoptionforstudentsattendingschoolsinmoreisolatedareas,anditisalsodifficultindistrictswhereentireareasofthedistrictarecomprisedmainlyoffailingschools.RecentresearchinvolvingChicago’sturnaroundeffortsrevealedthatstudentswhoseschoolswereclosedandattendednewschoolsdidnotexperiencebetteracademicoutcomes,mainlybecausemostofthemmovedontosimilarlylow-performingschools(delaTorreandGwynne,2009).

11Interestingly,schoolsdevelopinginitialTurnaroundPlanshavetheoptiontocloseandrestart,becausethatprovisionofS.B.163allowsthe selectionofoptionsavailableinfederalturnaroundlaw,whichincludesrestart.

36

Failing Districts: Loss of Accreditation and Reinstatement Requirements

Fordistricts,S.B.163operatesasanaccreditationframework.TheCommissionermayrecommendtotheStateBoardofEducationthatafailingdistrict’saccreditationberemoved,andassigntheStateReviewPaneltorecommendoneormoreofthefollowingactionsthatmustbemetforaccreditationtobereinstated:

•Reorganizationofthedistrict,whichmayincludeconsolidation

•Takeoverofdistrictoperationsand/orschooloperationsbyaprivateorpublicentity

•Conversionofoneormoreofthedistrict’sschoolstocharterschools

•Designationofoneormoreofthedistrict’sschoolsasInnovationSchools

•Closureofoneormoreofthedistrict’sschools

Ifthedistrictinquestionisthestate’sCharterSchoolInstitute,theStateBoardcandirectappointmentofanewInstitutegoverningboard,orthird-partymanagementoftheInstituteoroneormoreofitsschools.

IftheDepartment,theCommissioner,andtheStateReviewPanelagreeontherecommendationtoremoveaccreditation, therecommendationisforwardedtotheStateBoardofEducationforaction.TheStateBoardmayremoveaccreditationandsettheconditionsthatmustbemetforreinstatementofaccreditation.Currently,threedistrictsandoneBOCEShavefailedtoimproveonTurnaroundPlansandthusareeligibleforlossofaccreditation.TheStateBoardisrequiredtoremoveaccreditationfordistrictsthatareassignedanaccreditationratingofAccreditedwithPriorityImprovementPlanorTurnaroundPlanforfiveconsecutiveyears.

Mostofthereaccreditationoptionsinvolvethesameoptionsasinschoolrestructuring,whichmakessensebecause adistrict,afterall,isacollectionofschools.Twooptions,however,involveactionstobetakenatthedistrictlevel.

District Reorganization

S.B.163providesthatiftheStateBoardremovesadistrict’saccreditationandrecommendsclosureorreorganization, theexistingprocesscontainedintheSchoolDistrictOrganizationAct(CRS22-30-101)istriggered.Thisstatuterequires aplanningprocess,includingtheformationofaplanningcommitteerepresentingaffectedschooldistricts.Theplanning committeeischargedwithdevelopingareorganizationplan,whichissubjecttopublichearingandalsorequiresa specialschooldistrictelectioninvolvingtheeligibleelectorsofeachaffectedschooldistrict.Ifthevotersrejectthe plan,itisnotimplemented.Ineffect,thisgivesthevotersofaschooldistricttherighttovetothedecisiontocloseor consolidateadistrict.12

12C.R.S.22-30-117(1)statesthatoncethecommissionerandtheplanningcommitteehaveapprovedthefinalplan,“thecommitteeshallcall forandestablishthedateofaspecialschooldistrictelectionwhereintheeligibleelectorsineachschooldistrictaffectedbythefinalapproved planshallvoteupontheadoptionorrejectionofthefinalapprovedplanoforganization.”

SB163DistrictTurnaroundOption–Reorganization

“…Thattheschooldistrictbereorganizedpursuanttoarticle30ofthistitle,whichreorganizationmayincludeconsolidation…”

CRS22-11-209(2)(a)(1)(A)

37

Thisisproblematicbecausevotersarehighlyunlikelytovotetoclosetheirowndistrict.Theschooldistrictanditshistory areoftenextremelyimportanttothecommunityidentity,particularlyinruralareas.Ineffect,theprocesscurrently containedintheSchoolDistrictOrganizationActmayactasabartoeverusingthatacttoreorganizeadistrict.Ideally, theSchoolDistrictOrganizationActwouldbeamendedtoprovideforcommunityinvolvementinthedevelopmentof areorganizationplan,butrequirethatthefinalplanissubjecttoapprovalbytheStateBoardofEducationandmust provideforclosureorreorganization.

Closingadistrictisaveryextrememeasurethatwouldcertainlygeneratesubstantialpoliticalopposition,anditislikelythatthiswouldonlybeundertakeninveryrarecircumstancesifatall.Itisalsoobviouslytheultimateinfringementonlocalcontrolofinstruction.However,thereisanargumenttobemadethatthisisanappropriateexerciseofthestate’soversightauthoritywhenalocalcommunityhasprovenunabletooperateitsschoolsaccordingtominimumstandards.

Takeover of District Operations by a Private or Public Entity

Again,S.B.163issilentastothedetailsofadistricttakeover,includingquestionsaboutwhoselectsandcontractswiththethirdpartyoperator,althoughthestatuteaddresseslocalcontrolbyspecifyingthattheagreementofthedistricttothearrangementisrequired.Coloradoisnotastateinwhichlocalschoolboardmemberscanberemovedfrompower,sothelocalboardwouldremaininplace(providedvotersdidnotremovethem).However,itmightbepossiblethatthisoptioncallsfortheboardtoremovethecurrentsuperintendentandotheradministratorsandreplacethemwithanewmanagementteamfromanoutsideentityspecializinginturnaround.

Inmanyotherstates,therearestatutesprovidingforstatetakeoverofdistrictsthatareacademicallyorfinanciallytroubled.Forexample,Michigan’sinterventionintheDetroitPublicSchoolswasoriginallypartofafinancialtakeover,andCaliforniaandTexasdistrictshavebeentakenoverbythestateforfinancialmismanagement.S.B.163wouldpermitthestatetotakeoveracademicallyorfinanciallytroubleddistricts(asapublicentityunderthethird-partymanagementoption),butonlyifthedistrictagreestoit.

Implications for Policy Changes

Ingeneral,S.B.163setsupasolidframeworkthatusesacontinuousimprovementplanningprocesstoidentifycategories ofperformanceandstrategiesforimprovement.Forthelowest-performingschoolsanddistricts,thereappearstobe sufficientbalancebetweenidentificationforturnaroundandtimeandopportunitytoimprove,andbetweenlocal decision-makingonstrategiesintheearlierstagesandstatemandatedactioninthelaterstages.

Availableoptionsforturnaroundarebroadandflexible,andifinterpretedstrategicallyhavesufficientteethtoincentivizesignificantchange.Schoolscanbeclosed,anddistrictscanbeconsolidatedwithothersorhaveschoolsclosedwithouttheirconsent.If,ontheotherhand,adistrictorschoolisdirectedtoengageinactiveturnaround,thestateframework

SB163DistrictTurnaroundOption–ThirdPartyManagement

“…Thataprivateorpublicentity,withtheagreementoftheschooldistrict,takeovermanagementoftheschooldistrictormanagementofoneormoreofthedistrictpublicschools…”

CRS22-11-209(2)(a)(1)(A)

38

permitsseveralavailableroutes.DistrictslikeDenverPublicSchools,whowanttoactivelyparticipateinturnaroundworkasadistrictpriorityandhavethecapacitytodothisworkwell,canworkwithexternalLeadPartnersanduseInnovationSchoolsandZonesasaprimarystrategy.Ontheotherhand,schoolslocatedindistrictsthatarenotinterestedinorabletosupportturnaroundmightbenefitmostfromconversiontoacharterschool,whichisnotoperatedbythedistrict.

Otherschoolsanddistrictscouldbenefitfromarangeofthird-party“privateorpublic”entitiesservingasturnaround partnersorschooloperators,rangingfromdivisionsofCDEtoquasi-stateagenciessuchasBoardsofCooperative EducationalServicesorthestateCharterSchoolInstitute,tononprofitorganizationssuchaschartermanagement organizationsandtoprivateentities.S.B.163appearstoplacenorestrictionsontheidentityofpotentialthird-party turnaroundpartnersandoperators,otherthanthattheyuseresearch-basedstrategiesandhavehadsuccessinsimilar organizations.ThisshouldallowColoradotobenefitfromthewiderangeofturnaroundprovidersdescribedabovein thesectiononnationalturnaroundefforts,providedthatthesepartnerscanbeconvincedtojoinColorado’sinitiative.

TheprimarychallengewiththecurrentlanguageofS.B.163isthatitdoesnotprovideautomaticandconsistentautonomy fornewschooloperators.InnovationSchoolleadersaredependentuponthelocaldistrictforautonomy;newthirdparty managersdon’thaveastatutoryroutetoautonomy.OtherissuesincludeS.B.163’suseofotherstatutoryprocessesthat arenotnecessarilyoptimalroutesforturnaround.

ThetableinAppendixFsummarizestherangeofstate-levelpolicychangesthatcouldstrengthenturnaroundoptions,dependingonthestrategiesselected.Thevariousoptionsdiscussedarenotnecessarilymutuallyexclusive.Basedonourreview,werecommendthatthestateconsideratleastthefollowingtoensurethegoalsofS.B.163areachieved:

•Providethatturnaroundoperatorsforschoolsanddistrictsdirectedtoimplementmandatoryturnaround interventionsaregivenmaximumautonomyintheareasofstaffing,scheduling,curriculum,etc.

•Providethatschoolssubjecttoturnaroundmaybedirectedtoimplementoneormoreofthestatutoryoptions

•Providethatschoolssubjecttoturnaroundinterventionsmaybedirectedtocloseandrestart

•ProvidethatdistrictsaccreditedwithPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundPlansloseexclusivecharteringauthority

•Providethatschoolsconvertedintocharterschoolsasaresultofturnaroundmaybedistrict-authorizedcharterschools,independentcharterschools,orCharterSchoolInstitute-authorizedcharterschools,dependingonthecircumstances

•Clarifythatthestatemaydirectthatschoolsmaybeplacedintoanetworkofsimilarly-situatedturnaroundschools,inadditiontootheractions

•Clarifyhowandunderwhatcircumstancesschoolsmaybereturnedtodistrictmanagement

•ProvidethattheSchoolDistrictOrganizationActdoesnotrequireavoteofelectorstoapproveareorganization orconsolidationplanresultingfromturnaround

39

ThE LANDSCAPE oF LoW-PERFoRMINg SChooLS AND DISTRICTS IN CoLoRADo

Low-performingschoolsanddistrictsinColoradoarefoundacrossthestate,inmajorcities,insmalltowns,andinisolated ruralareas.Thissectionofthereportprovidesapictureofcurrentlystrugglingschoolsanddistricts.Tobesuccessful,thestate’sturnaroundinitiativewillneedtorecognizethegreatdiversityofcontextsandneeds.However,itisalsolikelytobetruethatthestatewillnotbeabletoengageinactiveindividualturnaroundeffortswithalleligibleschoolsanddistrictsatonceandwillneedtoprioritizeintervention.

Low-Performing Schools

Ofthenearly1,800schoolsinColorado,51havebeenassignedTurnaroundPlansin2012.13 For 10 of these schools, this representstheirthirdconsecutiveyearofturnaround,whichmeansthattheyareeligibleforimmediaterestructuring underS.B.163.Another14havereceivedtheirsecondTurnaroundPlanassignment.

Anadditional140schoolswereassignedPriorityImprovementPlans,placingtheminthesecond-to-worstcategory ofperformance.14OnehundredandonehavebeenonPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundPlansformorethanone consecutiveyear.Forty-fiveareenteringyearfourofthefive-yearclock.AfterthefifthyearonPriorityImprovement/ Turnaroundstatus,S.B.163directsthattheybesubjecttomandatoryclosureorrestructuring.Alistofschoolsassigned TurnaroundandPriorityImprovementPlansin2012isinAppendixC.Collectively,theseschoolsserveover81,000 students,orjustundertenpercentofallstudentsinthestate.

Thereiswidegeographicvarietyamonglow-performingschools.Low-performingschoolsareintheDenvermetroarea,thecitiesofPuebloandGreeley,smalltownsacrossthestate,andisolatedareasintheEasternPlains.Denverhasthelargestnumberofturnaroundandpriorityimprovementschools,followedbymetro-areadistrictssuchasAdams12, Adams14,Aurora,andWestminster.Outsidethemetroarea,Puebloisnotableforthenumberoflow-performingschools,withfourofitsfivemiddleschoolsonTurnaroundPlans(andthreeofthoseforthethirdconsecutiveyear).

Approximatelyhalfoflow-performingschoolsresideindistrictsthatarethemselvesaccreditedwithPriorityImprovement orTurnaroundPlans,buthalfresideinhigher-performingdistricts.JeffersonCountyPublicSchools,thelargestschool districtinthestate,hasjustthreeschoolswithPriorityImprovementPlansandnonewithTurnaroundPlans.Severalotherhigh-performingdistricts,includingDouglasCounty,St.Vrain,andThompson,havetwotothreelow-performingschoolsapiece,typicallyonlineschools.

Severalnotabletrendsappearinlookingatthedataonlow-performingschools.First,thevastmajorityoftheseschoolsservehigh-povertystudentpopulations.Statewide,42percentofColorado’sstudentsareeligibleforfreeorreducedlunch;inschoolswithTurnaroundandPriorityImprovementPlans,theaveragepercentageofstudentseligiblefor free-and-reducedlunchis71percent.Ofthe191turnaroundandpriorityimprovementschools,163haveafree-and

Allhappyfamiliesarealike;eachunhappyfamilyisunhappy initsownway.

Leo Tolstoy

13Thisnumberincludes40regularschoolsand11alternativeeducationcampuses.14Thisnumberincludes125regularschoolsand14alternativeeducationcampuses.

40

reduced-luncheligibilityrateof50percentorover;121havefree-and-reducedluncheligibilityratesof70percentorhigher;andin35schools,90percentofstudentsareeligibleforfreeorreducedlunch.ThevastmajorityofDenver’sturnaroundandpriorityimprovementschoolshavefree-and-reducedluncheligibilityratesof90percentorhigher.

Colorado’sonlineschoolsareclearlystrugglingtomeettheneedsofstudents,eventhoughtheytendtoservewealthier familiesthanothertypesofschools,andeventhougharecentstudyshowedthatonlinestudentsandtheirfamilies arequitesatisfiedwiththeeducationtheyreceive(BuechnerInstituteforGovernance,2012).DouglasCounty’sthree PriorityImprovement/Turnaroundschoolsareallonline,includingHopeOnline,whichservesnearly3,000students. Colorado’slargestonlineschool,ColoradoVirtualAcademyinAdams12,servesover5,000studentsandisonitsthird yearwithaPriorityImprovementPlan.Threesmallruraldistricts,Karval,Vilas,andJulesburg,operatetroubledonline schoolsthatcollectivelyservenearly1,000students.15

Elementary,middle,andhighschoolsarerepresentedfairlyevenly,althoughmiddleschoolsappeartobeaparticularprobleminPueblo,Greeleyandanumberofruralareas.

Eligibility for free and reduced lunch, 2011-12 guidelines - uSDA

Free:130percentofpovertyguidelines–$29,055forfamilyoffourReduced:185percentofpovertyguidelines–$41,348forfamilyoffour

15Thisrepresentsarelativelyrecentdilemmaforsmallcash-strappedruraldistricts–theonlineschoolsallowmoredollarstoflowintothedistrict,butpooracademicperformanceaffectsthedistrict’saccreditationrating.

41

Low-Performing Districts

OfColorado’s178traditionalschooldistricts,74percentreceivedaccreditationratingsinthetoptwocategoriesofAccreditedorAccreditedwithDistinctionin2012.Twenty-fourpercentareaccreditedwithImprovementPlans;nearly11percenthavePriorityImprovementPlans;andjusttwopercenthaveTurnaroundPlans.AlistofalldistrictsaccreditedwithPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundPlansin2012iscontainedinAppendixD.

Ofthe23districtsandoneBOCESassignedtothelowesttwoaccreditationratingsin2012,18wereassignedtoAccredited withaPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundPlanstatusforatleastthesecondconsecutiveyear,puttingthem“onthe clock”towardsS.B.163’sfive-yearlimit.Inaddition,twodistrictsandoneBOCEShavereceivedtheirthirdconsecutive TurnaroundPlanassignment.Asdiscussedabove,districtsthatfailtomakeprogressunderTurnaroundPlans,and districtsthatareassignedPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundPlansformorethanfiveconsecutiveyears,aresubject tolossofaccreditation.RuraldistrictsKarvalandVilasareinyear4oftheclock,andalsohavefailedtomakeprogress underaturnaroundplan.Adams14hashadaTurnaroundPlanforthreeyears,whichexemplifiesfailuretomake progressunderaTurnaroundPlan.

ThedistrictswithPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundPlansin2012areadiversegroup,fromlocationsacrossthestate andwithstudentpopulationsrangingfrom66to76,000.Total2012studentenrollmentinPriorityImprovement/Turn arounddistrictswas213,825,representing24.8percentofthestate’stotalstudentpopulationof863,561.17Ofstudents inPriorityImprovement/Turnarounddistricts,153,397,or72percent,attenddistrictslocatedinthemetroDenverarea.

Asagroup,thedistrictsonPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundtendtoserveagreatershareoflow-incomechildrenandagreatershareofEnglishlanguagelearnersthanstateaverages.Forexample,insevenofthe23PriorityImprovement/Turnarounddistricts,Englishlanguagelearnersmakeupmorethan30percentofthestudentpopulation.Thestateaverage

16TheCharterSchoolInstitutewasassignedaPriorityImprovementPlanbasedonpriorfinancialproblems.17Thisnumberislargerthanthetotalnumberofstudentsinlow-performingschoolsbecausenoteveryschoolinaPriorityImprovementor Turnarounddistrictislow-performing.

Accreditation Rating Category

Number of Traditional Districts in Category, 2012

Number of BoCES in Category, 2012 Charter School Institute16

AccreditedwithDistinction 19

Accredited 112 1

Accreditedwith ImprovementPlan

43

AccreditedwithPriorityImprovementPlan 19 1

Accreditedwith Turnaround Plan 4 1

NotAccredited 0

42

forfreeorreducedluncheligibilityis42percent;forthePriority/Turnarounddistricts,theaverageis60.1percent.In12PI/TAdistricts,morethan70percentofstudentsareeligibleforfreeorreducedlunch.Justtwodistrictshadfewerthan50percentofstudentseligibleforfreeorreducedlunch.

Itisextremelydifficultforhigh-povertydistrictstoachievehighperformance.JusttwoofColorado’sdistrictswithmore than70percentlow-incomestudentswereratedasAccredited,bothruralwithsmallnumbersofstudents.18However,it shouldbenotedthathavingrelativelylargepercentagesoflow-incomestudentsand/orEnglishlanguagelearnersdoes notinexorablyleadtoPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundaccreditationstatus.Thefollowingdistrictshavesimilar demographicsbutareratedasAccredited.

Thediversityofthestate’sdistrictswithTurnaroundandPriorityImprovementPlanscouldleadtosomeproductivegroupings.Forexample,districtscouldbeclusteredbysize,setting,and/orgeographiclocation.

18ThesedistrictsareAgateandHolly.In2012,Hollyserved292K-12students,andAgateservedjust10.

District Setting/ Region

# of K-12 Students

20122012 FRL % 2011 ELL % 2010 Rating 2011 Rating 2012 Rating

Eagle OutlyingTown-Northwest 6,408 43% 37% Accredited Accredited Accredited

Sanford Rural- Southwest 330 59% 1% Accredited Accredited Accredited

Yuma OutlyingTown-Northeast 780 64% 34% Accredited Accredited Accredited

43

44

District Root Cause Analysis

Aspartofthisproject,wewereaskedtoidentifykeyissuesfacinglow-performingdistricts,weanalyzedasampleof30 districtimprovementplanstodeterminewhethertherewerecommonthemesamongtherootcausesidentifiedas contributingtolowperformance.Thedistrictsinthesamplewereselectedbecausetheyeitherwereaccreditedwith PriorityImprovementorTurnaroundPlans,orbecausetheyhadoneormoreschoolsontheirsecondyearofaTurnaround Plan.Foreachofthefourkeyperformanceindicators,districtplanswerereviewedandcodedforfrequencyofreference topre-identifiedrootcauses.19

EachyearCDEprovidesUnifiedImprovementPlanProcessTrainingsessionsinpartnershipwiththeCenterforTransforming LearningandTeaching(CTLT).ThesesessionsaddresseachstepintheUIPprocess.AsdistrictsbetterutilizetheUIPtool, thequalityofinformationthatdistrictsandschoolsprovideevolvesandimproves.Althoughdistrictsclearlyhaveroomfor improvementinanalyzingtheirdataanddevelopingtheirplans,therootcauseanalysisdididentifyseveralthemesthat wereconsistentlycitedbydistrictsasrelatedtopoorperformance.Foreachofthekeyperformanceindicators,morethan halfofdistrictssampledidentifiedmisalignedand/orpoorlyimplementedcurricular,instructional,anddataanalysismaterials andpracticesasrootcausesforlowperformance.Inadditiontotheseinterrelatedrootcauses,48%ofdistrictsalsoidentifiedfailuretoeffectivelyimplementinterventionsasarootcauseoffailuretocloseachievementgapsandmeetpost-secondaryandworkforcereadinessmeasures.

Root Cause (Theme) Academic Priority Challenge

growth Priority Challenge

gaps Priority Challenge

Post-Secondary Workforce

Curriculum 83% 83% 69% 41%

Instruction 79% 69% 72% 38%

Data Proficiency 55% 52% 41% 28%

Leadership 45% 41% 24% 21%

StudentExpectations 34% 14% 24% 24%

Intervention 21% 17% 48% 48%

ParentSupport 3% 3% 3% 0%

Turnover 7% 0% 0% 0%

ELL 7% 0% 17% 3%

FRL 3% 0% 14% 0%

IEP 3% 0% 10% 0%

Resource Constraints 0% 3% 10% 0%

EarlyWarningSigns 0% 0% 0% 28%

Transitions 0% 0% 0% 24%

19AsdescribedmorefullyinAppendixB,eachdistrictisrequiredtosubmitanannualplanthatanalyzestrendsandidentifiesrootcauses ofanyunderperformanceinthevariousareasoftheSchoolPerformanceFramework.

45

Inotherwords,manydistrictsarestrugglingwithsomeverybasicalignmentandinstructionalissues.Onedistrictsummed itupinawaythatseemstoapplytojustabouteverydistrictinthestudy:“[The]…districtlacksastandards-basedcurriculum, useofresearch-basedinstructionalstrategies,andappropriatematerialsthatusestudentachievementdatatoguideand informinstruction…”AppendixEcontainsamoredetaileddescriptionoftheresultsoftherootcauseanalysis.

AswetalkedtoCDEstaffaboutlow-performingdistricts,italsobecameclearthatleadershipandpoliticswerekeyissuesinsomeofthesedistricts.Severaldistrictshavechallengesinattractingandretainingqualityeducationalleaders;othershavedysfunctionalschoolboardsanddifficultcommunitydynamics.TheseissuesaretypicallynotcapturedintheUIPs,butoftencontributetothedistrict’sinabilitytoimproveitseducationalperformance.

Someofourruralareasstrugglewithconsistentandeffectiveleadership …theyhaveproblemswithleadershipandleadershipburnout.There aresomanylevelsofdistrictpoliticsandturnaroundispoliticallysensitive.

CDE Performance Manager

“…[Thereare]manyuncoordinatedchangeinitiativesgoingatonetimeandschoolsarestrugglingtofocustheirattentioninwaysthatimproveinstruction…”

From a district improvement plan

46

DECISIoN PoINTS FoR CoLoRADo

Atthispoint,certaindecisionsneedtobemadetoallowColoradotoeffectivelymoveforwardwithitsturnaroundwork.Thesewillbediscussedinturn.

Who will direct overall oversight and coordination of turnaround efforts in the state?

Asdiscussedpreviously,optionsforthisrolearemany.However,lessonsfromtheresearchshowthattheremustbe strongleadershipandclearlinesofresponsibilityinimplementingaccountabilitysystems.Coloradomustdecidewho isresponsiblefortheoversightofturnaroundschoolsanddistricts,andwhatthatresponsibilityentails.Itshouldbe notedthatS.B.163providesthattheStateBoardofEducationisultimatelyresponsibleforselectingspecificturnaround actions.Colorado’sconstitutionalbalancingoflocalcontrolandstateoversightresponsibilitieslikelydictatesthatthe stateitself,whetherthroughtheStateBoardorCDE,maketheseultimatedecisions.However,theresponsibilityfor shepherdingthestate’sturnaroundschoolsthroughtheirjourneyscouldconceivablybehandledbyadifferententity asathird-partymanagerorasanewly-createdstaterecoveryorganization.

Theroleofcoordinationandoversightalsoshouldbeunderstoodtobepotentiallyseparatefromtheroleofday-to-dayschoolanddistrictoperations.Theentityresponsibleforcoordinationandoversightcouldbesetuptooperateschoolsitself,ortocontractoutfortheoperationsofschools,orsomecombination.Thissectionwilldiscussthebenefitsandchallengesassociatedwithdifferententitiesthatmightplaythisrole.

S.B.163impliesthatCDEwillplayasignificantroleinthecoordinationandoversightofschoolanddistrictturnaround.Inparticular,CDEalreadyhasresponsibilityforoverseeingtheUnifiedImprovementPlanningprocessestablishedbyS.B.163,theplacementofschoolsanddistrictsinperformancecategories,andformakingrecommendationstotheStateBoardofEducationaboutappropriatestate-mandatedactionsforthelowest-performingschoolsanddistricts.

Currently,CDE’sDivisionofAccountability,Performance,andSupportisactingintheturnaroundoversightrole.The OfficeofDistrictandSchoolPerformancewithinthatdivisionemploysfourPerformanceManagerswhoarecharged withoverseeingandadvisingdistrictswithTurnaroundPlansandselectedPriorityImprovementdistrictsthatareonthe five-yearclock.DSPalsohousesthreepersonnelchargedwithgeneralfieldsupportservices.OtherunitsatCDEalso provideinputandsupportforlow-performingschools,includingunitsinvolvedwithfederalprograms,accountabilityand dataanalysis,andimprovementplanning.

Withoutadditionalfunding,theOfficeofDistrictandSchoolPerformanceisnotabletoassignPerformanceManagerstoallPriorityImprovementdistricts,ortoschoolswithTurnaroundorPriorityImprovementPlanslocatedinhigher-per-formingdistricts.Inaddition,theroleofthefieldsupportservicesteaminimplementingS.B.163oranyotherrecenteducationreformsisnotclear,andthreeindividualscertainlyarenotsufficienttofillsupportneedsforthisoranyothermajorstateinitiative.

Asdiscussedpreviously,inIndiana,thestateofficeofturnaroundservesastheoversightandcoordinatingbodyfor turnaroundsinthestate.Thisofficeisresponsibleforidentifyingandvettingturnaroundschooloperators,andfor monitoringturnaroundprogress.Itdoesnotoperateanyschoolsitself.S.B.163providestheframeworkforColorado totakethesamepathifitchoosestodoso.Anotheroptionforthestateistocreateanewagencyorunitthatserves asastaterecoveryorganization.Forexample,recoveryschooldistrictsinMichiganandTennesseearearmsofthestate departmentofeducation.

47

SomeinColoradoaredubiousabouttheabilityofCDEtobetough,and/oritsabilitytobeeffective.Othershavestatedthatthestateshouldplaysolelyanaccountabilityrole,andnotbeinvolvedatallinimprovementefforts,muchliketheroleofacharterauthorizer.CDEstaffalreadyplaysupportrolesinmanyactivitiesthatinvolvelow-performingschools,includingfederalprogramimplementationandsupport,andtheimprovementplanningprocess.Thedepartmenthasalsobeencriticizedinthepastfortakingasingle-mindedcomplianceapproachtoschoolsanddistricts,whichdidnotresultingoodrelationshipsbetweenthestateanddistricts.Thestateislikelytoneedtobalanceitsvariousrolesinordertoleveragescarceresourcesandtomaintaintrustwithdistricts–criticalinalocalcontrolstate.

Somecommentatorssuggestthatstatedepartmentsofeducationshouldnotbechargedwithturningschoolsaround,arguingthatthecultureofbureaucracythatcharacterizesmoststateagencieswillultimatelybeunabletosupportthequickandflexibledecision-makingneededforsuccessfulturnaround.Attheveryleast,thereappearstobeagreementthattheturnaroundagencyshouldbewell-insulatedfromstatebureaucracy.Basedonresearchfromotherstates,theseoptionsbenefitfromthesimultaneousidentificationofacharismaticandinfluential“turnaroundczar”toprovidestrongpublicleadership.

InColorado,severaloptionshavebeenmentionedforanewstaterecoveryorganization.Oneofthemisthestate’s CharterSchoolInstitute,anorganizationthatalreadyexistsandhousescharterschoolsacrossthestatethatfitintoits statutoryjurisdiction.Thestatecould,forexample,passlegislationtodirectthatturnaroundschoolsconvertedto charterschoolsautomaticallybecomeCharterSchoolInstituteschools.ThishasbenefitsinthatCSIalreadyhasthe authorityofaschooldistrict(includingtheabilitytoreceivefunds),andisastateagency.

However,therearealsoissueswiththisapproach.First,indistrictsthatareactivelyusingcharterschoolsasastrategyforadiversifiedportfolioofschoolchoice,newcharterschoolsmightbebetterservedbyremaininginthedistrict.ItmaybethatthoseschoolsideallyplacedinCSIareschoolswhosedistrictsarenotthemselvesinterestedinacharterportfoliostrategyand/ordonothavethecapacitytoimplementthisstrategywell.

AnotherissueisthattheCharterSchoolInstituteitselfisaccreditedwithaPriorityImprovementPlan,with2012 beingthethirdyearinwhichithasbeenassignedaPriorityImprovementPlan.Thisdesignationstemsfromprevious financialmismanagementratherthanacademicunderperformance,andnewleadershipappearstobeontracktoput CSI’sfiscalhouseinorder.However,atpresent,CSIisatriskofbeingreconstituteditselfunlessitisabletoimprove itsaccreditationstatus.

Finally,CSIinitscurrentstructureoperatessolelyasacharterauthorizer–CSIdoesnotitselfoperatecharterschools.CSIadherestothequalityauthorizerstandardspromotedbytheNationalAssociationofCharterSchoolAuthorizers,whichcallforauthorizerstoclosepersistentlylow-performingschoolsratherthanattempttoimprovethem.Thisisnotnecessarilyaproblem,inthatschoolsplacedinCSIbecauseofturnaroundcanbeoperatedbyhigh-qualityoperatorsandimprovethroughthatavenue;however,itisimportanttounderstandCSI’sroleinitscurrentconfiguration.Ofcourse,CSI’srolecouldbeadaptedifitwastaskedwithadifferentmission.

AnothercandidateforSROistheColoradoLegacyFoundation,anonprofitorganizationthatworksinpartnershipwiththeColoradoDepartmentofEducationandothereducationstakeholderstohelpidentify,incubate,andspreadinnovativepracticesinthestate.Currently,theLegacyFoundation’smainareasofemphasisareeducatorevaluation,extendedlearningopportunities,healthyschools,andahighschoolinitiativethatemphasizesAdvancedPlacementcourse-takingandcollege

20NewSchoolsforNewOrleansisanonprofitthatmakesstrategicinvestmentsinNewOrleanscharterschools.

48

preparation.TheColoradoLegacyFoundationisnotanarmofthestateeducationdepartment,althoughitsmissionistiedtothestate;itisaseparatenonprofitorganizationgovernedbyaboardoftrustees.IfitplayedaroleasanSRO,itwouldnotfunctionasadistrictwithoutnewlegislation.

CLFhasbeenverysuccessfulinattractingmajorfundingtothestate,andcouldleveragethathistorytoserveasaconduitfornationalfundsdesignedtobuildColorado’sturnaroundcapacity.Again,CLFinitscurrentcapacitywouldserveacoordinatingandoversightrole,ratherthandirectlyoperatingschools.CLFcouldalsoserveamorelimitedroleastheoversightentityforschoolswhoseneedsareconsistentwithitscurrentpriorities,suchasschoolsinwhichextendedlearningopportunitieswillbeakeyturnaroundstrategy,orhighschoolsthatneedtorefocusoncollegepreparation.

Coloradocouldalsodevelopanewnonprofitrecoveryorganizationalongthelinesof“NewSchoolsforaNewColorado.”20 Thisorganizationwouldalsonotfunctionasaschooldistrictperse,butcouldbeanumbrellathird-partymanager.Adequate andsustainablefundingwouldbeveryimportantinthiscase,anditisnotclearthatpossibilitiesforfundingsuchan organizationhavebeenfullyexplored.

Atpresent,no“turnaroundczar”hasemergedatthelevelofaPaulPastorekorChrisAdamowskiforthestate.Thisisnottosaythatonemightnotemerge,especiallyoncethestatehasmadeacommitmenttoaspecificcourseofaction.Interestingly,severalcommentatorshavesuggestedthatGovernorJohnHickenloopercouldplaythisrole.

how should low-performing schools and districts be prioritized for state assistance and interventions?Severalschoolsanddistrictsareeligibleformandatedstateinterventionsrightnow,andmanymoreareinthefive-yearpipeline.Howwillthesystemmanageits“caseload?”Iffewerthanalleligibleschoolsanddistrictswillbeintheactiveturnaroundsystematanygiventime,whatwillthedecisioncriteriabeforidentifyingthemoreurgentcases?Howwillschoolsanddistrictsnotselectedforimmediatetriagebeassistedinimprovingtheirperformance?

Currently,CDEdoesnothavethebandwidthtooverseeandcoordinateassistanceforallschoolsanddistrictsthatare low-performing.Instead,thestatehaschosentofocusitsresourcesonaselectednumberofdistrictsthathavebeen labeledasTurnaroundorthathavebeenlabeledasTurnaroundorPriorityImprovementforseveralconsecutiveyears. Afewdistrictsinthiscategoryhavechosentoactivelyengageintheirownturnaroundinitiatives–DenverPublic Schoolsisthebestexampleofadistrictthathasbuiltsubstantialinfrastructureandcapacitytomanageitsownschool turnarounds.ItwouldnotmakesenseforthestatetotrytoreplicatethisworkindistrictssuchasDPS.Somedistricts couldcreateinternalcapacityforturnaroundsandarepresumablywillingtodoso.Othersmaynotbewillingtodivert resourcesandfocustoturnaround,orsimplymaynothaveenoughcapacityoraretoodysfunctionaltoeventry.

Ifthestateprioritizesbasedonnumbersofstudentsaffected,investmentswouldprobablybefocusedonfailingdistrictsinlargepopulationcenterssuchastheDenvermetroarea,Pueblo,andGreeley.Interventionsherewouldgivethestatethebiggestbangforthebuckintermsofnumbersofstudentsaffected.However,thismayraisequestionsofequity,asthestateisconstitutionallyrequiredtoensurethatstudentsacrossthestatehaveaccesstoathoroughanduniformsystemofeducation.Thestatecouldstriveforamorebalancedgeographicspreadofschoolsanddistrictssubjecttoturnaround.However,thiscouldalsoincreasethecostofturnaroundandalsobringsinthechallengingsubjectofhowbesttoconductturnaroundsinruralareasthatarenotlikelytoattractaninfluxofexperiencedturnaroundoperators.

What turnaround actions contained in S.B. 163 are appropriate for what circumstances? What diagnostic tools are available? how will these decisions be made, and by whom?S.B.163currentlyprovidesthattheStateBoardofEducationmakesthe ultimatedecisionsaboutturnaroundactions,onceaschoolordistrict’sperformancehasdeclinedtoastatewhereitis eligibleforstate-mandatedinterventions.UsingColorado’selectedStateBoardofEducationtomakethesedeterminations

49

hasbothbenefitsandchallenges.First,itistheStateBoardofEducationthathasconstitutionalresponsibilityforoverseeing thestate’sschools,andtheprocessinS.B.163representsthemostdirectanddefensiblewaytoexercisethatauthority.

However,themembersoftheStateBoardofEducationmayormaynothavebackgroundsineducationorschoolreform, andaselectedofficialsareconstantlysubjecttopoliticalpressure.IftheprocessinS.B.163isused,itisessentialthat theyreceivecomprehensiveinformationanddecision-makingcriteriathatwillhelpthemmakethebestpossibledecisions. Underthestatute,theCommissionerplaysaroleinadvisingtheStateBoard,asdoestheStateReviewPanel.S.B.163 directstheStateReviewPanelto“criticallyevaluate”thesituation,includingexistingleadershipcapacityatthedistrict andschoollevels.TheStateReviewPanel’srecommendations,alongwiththoseofthedepartment,arepresentedtothe StateBoardofEducation.

Asistrueofanyelectedbody,theStateBoardofEducationcanbeunpredictableintermsofwhatitsmemberswillfindrelevantandnotrelevantingivensituations.AnotheroptionistoamendS.B.163toprovidethattheCommissioner,ratherthantheStateBoard,istoselectamongthevariousturnaroundoptions.BecausetheCommissionerissubjecttoStateBoardoversight,thiswouldalsorepresentadefensibleexerciseofstateoversightauthority,andperhapsmayresultinmorepredictableoutcomes.

Thesourcesofthedataandthecriteriaforevaluatingthatdataarenotspecifiedbystatute.CDEisinthebestpositionto initiallycapturerelevantdata,throughitsactivitiesinimprovementplanning,federalprogramfundingandimplementation, anddataanalysis.CDE’sinitialdiagnosticprocessmightincludeevaluationofschoolanddistrictperformanceevidence, arrangingfortheequivalentofaSchoolSupportTeam(SST)orComprehensiveAssessmentforDistrictImprovement(CADI) visit,interviewswithkeydistrictand/orschoolstakeholders,andreviewofanyotherrelevantevidencesuchasTELLsurvey results.CDEcouldcreatetoolsforassessingthecapacityofthedistrictorschoolleadershiptoengageinmeaningfulchange, andtoworkproductivelywithathirdparty,aligningthosetoolswiththepurposesofS.B.163andwithdiagnosticcriteria usedbyCDEinotherareas.BeyondCDE’sdataandanalysis,informationcouldalsobecollectedfromthedistrictandfrom third-partyprovidersthathavebeeninvolvedinpreviousreformefforts.AppendixGcontainsideasforproceduresthat mightsupportdatacollection.

S.B.163providesamenuofoptionsforturnaroundsituations.Eachapproachprovidesdifferentstrengthsandchallenges, andtheseshouldbematchedtothesituation.ThetablebelowprovidesabriefexplanationoftheprosandconsofS.B. 163’sturnaroundoptionsforschools.

50

AppendixHcontainssampledecisioncriteriathatmightbeusedtoselectaninterventionforaschoolfacingclosure orrestructuring.

Indianaprovidesitsturnaroundoperatorsafullyearofassessmentandevaluationofaschool’scircumstancesbeforetheoperatorisexpectedtoactuallybeginrunningtheschool,andColoradomightwanttoconsiderasimilararrangement.Third-partyprovidersshouldalsobeabletoworkwithdistrictsandschoolstoadjusttheplanasneeded,asmoreinforma-tionbecomesavailableandmorestrategiesaretried.

What role should the State Review Panel play in assessing capacity and recommending interventions?

S.B.163providesfortheappointmentofanindependentStateReviewPaneltoperformthe followingfunctions:

•ReviewalldistrictandschoolTurnaroundPlansandrecommendmodificationsifneeded

•AttheCommissioner’srequest,reviewselecteddistrictandschoolPriorityImprovementPlans

Turnaround School Actions Pro Con

Management by public or private third party

Canprovidenewleadership,staff, andoperationsneededfordramatic change;allowsforawidevarietyof third party operators

Successdependsonavailability andqualityofthirdparty;autonomy currentlynotautomaticallygranted tooperatorsunlesspairedwith another option

Replacement of charter school’s operator and/or governing board

Canprovidenewleadership, staff, and operations needed for dramaticchange

Successdependsonavailability andqualityofnewoperator/ governingboard

Conversion to charter school

Providesnecessaryautonomy, maybeespeciallyusefulindistrict that is dysfunctional or unable to overseeturnaround

Successdependsonavailability andqualityofnewcharterschool operator/CMO

grant of status as Innovation School

Providesnecessaryautonomy whilekeepingschoolwithindistrict control;canbeusedaspartofa district-widestrategy;districtcan partnerwithexternalturnaround partnertoimplement

Doesnotitselfguaranteethat autonomywillbeusedwell;some districtsmaynotgofarenoughin usingInnovationSchoolstatusfor dramaticchange

Closure

Haltsexpensiveinvestments whencircumstancesshowthata schoolisnotlikelytoimproveeven withdramaticrestructuring

Disruptivetostudentsandfamilies;needs to be other educational options thatareconvenientandhigherquality

51

•ReviewsituationsinwhichCDEisrecommendingthatadistrictloseaccreditation,andrecommendthat theStateBoardofEducationrequirethedistricttotakeoneormoreactionsspecifiedinthestatute

•Reviewsituationsinwhichschoolsareeligibleforrestructuring,andmakerecommendationstothe StateBoardofEducationaboutstatutoryoptions

ThemembersoftheStateReviewPanelareappointedbytheCommissioner,subjecttoStateBoardapproval.The Commissionermayselectan“appropriate”numberofpersonswithdemonstratedexpertiseinoneormoreofthe followingareas:

•Schooldistrictorschoolleadershiporgovernance

•Standards-basedelementaryorsecondarycurriculum,instruction,andassessment

•Instructionaldatamanagementandanalysis

•Schooldistrict,school,orprogramevaluation

•Educationalprogrammanagement

•Teacherleadership

•Organizationalmanagementorschooldistrictandpublicschoolgovernance

•Schooldistrictorschoolbudgetingandfinance

•Anyotherfielddeemedrelevanttodistrictandschoolimprovementplananalysis

TheStateReviewPanelhasthepotentialtobearigorouscheckonthequalityofturnaroundandpriority improvementplansandontheappropriatenessofselectedinterventions.Unfortunately,italsohasthepotential tobeagroupofpeoplewithtoolittleinformationordirectiontobeanythingotherthanarubberstamp.

Currently,CDEisoperatingtheStateReviewPanelwithoutadditionalfunding.SRPmembersarevolunteers, whoarenotreimbursedfortimeorexpenses.Thestatehasprovidedtrainingforpanelmembersinreviewing internalimprovementplanlogicandinthestate’sturnaroundpolicyframework,butduetoresourcelimitations hasnotbeenabletoexpandtheSRPreviewtoprovidemorecomprehensivepicturesofschoolanddistrict performanceandcapacity.

What third-party providers are available to play the role of day-to-day turnaround partner/operator/services provider, and under what circumstances? how can Colorado create a market for these entities to ensure that the best national talent in turnaround flows to the state?Turnaroundinterventionsthatproducedramaticresultsrequiredramaticchange. Bydefinition,thevastmajorityoftheturnaroundschoolsanddistrictswillnothavesufficientcapacitytobeabletodo thisontheirown–iftheydid,theywouldlikelyalreadyhaveimproved.Coloradowillneedtocreateathrivingmarket forthird-partyproviders,boththosealreadylocatedinthestateandthosethatcanberecruitedfromanationalmarket.

Thestateanditsdistrictsshouldbecarefultodistinguishbetweenturnaroundproviders–thoseentitiesthatwillmakethe quickanddramaticorganizationalandinstructionalchangesneededforsuccessfulturnaroundofadysfunctionalschoolor district–andtechnicalassistanceproviders,whopromotesustainableprofessionallearninginnon-turnaroundenvironments. BothtypesofprovidersarenecessaryinthebigpictureofschoolimprovementinColorado,butresearchhasshownthat theapplicationofstandardtechnicalassistancetoaturnaroundsituationdoesnotwork.

52

SomeinitialideasaboutpotentialpartnersandprovidersarecontainedinAppendixI.

how many turnaround leaders are needed? how will turnaround leadership be identified and developed? What incentives will be needed?Theliteratureisclearthatturnaroundschoolleadershiprequiresasetofattitudesandskillsnottypicallyconveyedintraditionalpreparationprogramsorregularlyneededinhigher-functioningschools.Successfulturnaroundschoolleadersmustbeentrepreneurial,decisive,andfocusedonresults.ThereiscurrentlynoleadershippipelineinColoradoforturnaroundschoolleadership.

PreliminaryresultsfromaDonnell-KayFoundationsurveysenttosuperintendentsandcharternetworkleadersin November2012showthatjustfivepercentofrespondentsbelievethatprincipalpreparationprogramsaredoingagoodjobofpreparingcandidatestoleadturnaroundschools,andjustsevenpercentbelievethatprogramsarepreparingInnovationSchoolleadershipwell.Whilesometurnaroundoperatorswillbringtheirownturnaroundschoolleaderswiththem,Coloradowillneedtoconsiderspecializedtrainingforhome-grownturnaroundschoolleaders.ThesecouldrangefromimmersiontrainingsforpromisingcandidatesidentifiedbydistrictstothedevelopmentofaTurnaroundLeadershipCorpsthatcouldbedeployedthroughoutthestate,focusingonareasunabletoattractexternalturnaroundoperators.Thestatemightalsowanttoconsiderexpandingthedefinitionofturnaroundleaderstoincludeturnaroundteacherleadersandcreatedeliberatepathwaysforteachers.

how can the number of schools and districts that are high-performing be increased through universal and targeted technical assistance? Who should provide this assistance?Thereare178districtsandnearly1,800schoolsinColorado. Someoftheseschoolsanddistrictsarehigh-performinganddonotneedassistance;asmallernumberwillneedtheintensive turnaroundassistancethatisthefocusofthisreport.Thatleavesalargenumberofschoolsanddistrictsthatareneither high-performingnorinimmediatedangeroffailure.ItwillbeinColorado’sbestintereststodeterminehowtoprovidethose schoolsanddistrictswithappropriatetechnicalassistancesothattheyareabletoimprovetheirperformance,stayoutof turnaround,andbepositionedtoimplementthearrayofeducationreformspassedinrecentyears.

CurrentlyCDEisdevelopingatieredsystemofsupportsfordistrictsthatisdesignedtobeabletoprovidedifferentiatedhelptodistricts,muchlikeaResponsetoInterventionframeworkprovidesdifferentiatedassistancetostudentswithinaschool.Withlimitedfunding,thiswillbechallenging,anditbecomesparticularlycriticalforthestatetoalignsupportsacrossprogramsandinitiativestoleverageresources.

Thedistrictrootcauseanalysisconductedforthisreportsuggeststhatalargenumberofdistrictsneedsomeverybasic help–aligningcurriculum,instruction,andassessmentstoColorado’sstandards,analyzingdata,andimplementing effectiveinterventionsforstudentswhoarenotlearning.Severaldistrictsappeartobestrugglingwithsignificant influxesofEnglishlanguagelearners,andacoordinatedefforttoensurethatalldistrictshaveaccesstoahigh-quality EnglishlanguagedevelopmentprogrammayallowthesestrugglingdistrictstostayoffPriorityImprovementand Turnaroundstatus.WhileColorado’sdistrictsgenerallydonotappreciatemandatesfromabove,theyareverymuch inneedofresourcestoturnto.ThisisparticularlytrueforthemajorityofColoradodistrictsthatarenotlargeenough tohavesophisticatedcentraloffices.

Who will be the “face” of turnaround in Colorado? Where will political and strategic leadership come from?

Oneofthelessonslearnedfromnationalturnaroundinitiativesistheimportanceofaprominentleaderwhoiswillingtobethechampionforturnaroundinthestate.Nocommunitywantsitsdistrictorschoolstobelabeledasfailures,andthedramaticchangesneededforsuccessinturnaroundwillinevitablybesubjecttobacklash.Coloradoneedstoidentifythepersonorpersonsbest-positionedtoplaythisrole.

53

ObviouscandidatesforthisroleincludethoseinchargeofturnaroundsatCDE,theCommissioner,and/orthepolitically popularGovernor.InColorado’sdecentralizedsystemofeducation,itmightbewisetopulltogetheracoalitionthat presentsaunitedfront.

54

RECoMMENDATIoNS FoR NEXT STEPS

Werecognizethatthereareavarietyofwaystomoveforwardonthedecisionpointsdiscussedabove.Basedonouranalysis,werecommendthefollowingnextstepsforColorado:

1. Identify the key individuals and organizations who will lead the implementation of S.B. 09-163, including overseeing the implementation of turnaround strategies and the coordination of resources used in turnaround.Althoughthereareclearlymanypotentialwaystoresolvethisissue,werecommendthatthestate’sDivisionofAccountability,Performance andSupportactasthecoordinatingandoversightbodyforturnaroundsinthestate.Wemakethisrecommendation forseveralreasons.First,inalocalcontrolstate,therolesofthestateanditsdistrictsshouldbeclearsothatallparties canunderstandhowtheirrespectiveobligationsarebalancedinawaythatmeetsconstitutionalrequirements.Second, thisisconsistentwithhowotherstatesareapproachingturnarounds,inthatinallcasesthestatemaintainsacoordinating andoversightrole.Third,thisapproachwouldstillpermittheuseofthird-partyorganizationsasfullpartnersinthestate’sturnaroundstrategy.

Atthispoint,nooneexpectsthatCDEwillbetheonlyentitythatprovidesturnaroundservices,andinfactS.B.163clearly anticipatesthatotherorganizationswillbedirectlyinvolvedinturnaround.Thisallowsthestatetoreapbenefitsfrom includinghigh-profilecharternetworksandotherturnaroundschooloperatorswhilestillhavingtheabilitytodirectother investmentsalignedwithstatepriorities,suchastheuseofblendedlearningstrategiesinappropriateturnaroundschools.

Ifthisapproachisused,wealsorecommendthatthestatedesignatecertainpartnersasstaterecoveryorganizationsthatareinvolvedincoordinatingresourcesandoperatorsfordifferentcategoriesofturnarounds.ThestructureandauthorityoftheCharterSchoolInstitutemakeitalogicalchoicetohousecertaintypesofturnarounds;theDenvermetroareaishometoseveraltalentedcharternetworks;theColoradoLegacyFoundationmaybeinterestedinsupervisingturnaroundsthatfitwithinitspriorities.Thisallowsthestatetotapintoresourcessoitcanexpandthebreadthoftheturnaroundinitiative.Asamplestructuremightlooklikethis:

55

MassInsight,oneofthenationalthoughtleadersaroundturnaround,suggeststhatthestatecanplaythefollowing rolesinturnaroundinitiatives:

•Buck-stoppingrole

•Table-settingrole

•Incentivizingrole

•Partner-buildingrole

•Investingrole

•Scalinguprole

CDE assesses contextand

coordinates resources, monitorsprogress

STATE BoARD DETERMINES

INTERVENTIoN FoR SChooL

Turnaround school operator selected by

CSIrunsschool

SROruns schools directly

District or school contractswith

turnaround school operator or operates

withdistrictturnaroundleadershipteam

StateSROcontracts withturnaround school operator

SROrunsSRO contractswith

turnaround school operator schools

directly

Schoolassignedto CharterSchoolInstitute

(SROforcharters)

SchoolassignedtoSRO for online schools

Schoolassigned todistrict-led turnaround

initiativeusing InnovationSchools

andZonedesignation

Schoolassigned toCDE-housedSRO usingpersonalized

learningas turnaroundstrategy

Schoolassignedto SROleadingstatewide

highschool turnaroundinitiative

56

CDEcouldplayalloftheserolesinanenvironmentinwhichitservesas“airtraffic”controllerforturnaround.

2. Develop procedures that ensure that the State Board of Education is provided with comprehensive information and analysis to assist it in making decisions on turnaround implementation.Asdiscussedabove,theStateBoardofEducationistheentityresponsiblefordeterminingtheappropriateinterventionforthelowest-performingschoolsanddistricts.Assumingthisremainsthecase,membersoftheStateBoardwillneedtorelyoncomprehensiveinformationabouteachschoolanddistrictcontext,includingstudentdata,priorreformefforts,districtleadershipcapacity,availablethird-partyproviders,availablefundingsources,andthelike.Theturnaroundoversightcoordinatorwillneedtodevelopsystemstoensurethatthisinformationisreliablycollectedandanalyzed.CurrentlyS.B.163providesthataStateReviewPanelistoevaluatethisinformationandmakerecommendationstotheStateBoardofEducation.IfthisrouteisusedtoprovideanalysistotheStateBoardofEducation,theStateReviewPanel’smembershipandprocedureswillneedtobecarefullyplannedandimplementedtoensurecredibilityandcomprehensiveness.

ToensurethatthePanelistherigoroustoolthatitisintendedtobe,werecommendthefollowing:

•Turnaround familiarity.MembersoftheStateReviewPanelshouldnotonlyhaveexpertiseintheareasselected,butthisexpertiseshouldalsoextendtofamiliaritywiththesuccessfulimplementationoftheseareasinchronicallyanddysfunctionalorganizations.Ideally,panelmembersarefamiliarwithturnaroundinitiativesandtheresearchthathasresultedfromtheseinitiatives;personalexperienceispreferred.Withoutthisperspective,membersarelikelytodefaulttorecommendingbestpracticesmoresuitableforhigher-performingorganizations.

•Diverse backgrounds.Totheextentpossible,membersoftheStateReviewPanelshouldbeintentionallydrawnfrom avarietyofbackgroundsandperspectives,includingcurrentandformereducators,membersofrepresentative educationassociations,representativesofreformgroups,businessandhighereducationrepresentativeswith relevantexpertise.Thispromotescross-sectorlearningandwillhelpprotectagainst“groupthink.”Again,without resourcestocompensatepanelmembers,thiscanbechallenging.

•Use of case reports and standardized criteria.TheinformationconsideredbytheStateReviewPanelshouldincludecasereportscompletedbytheCDEperformancemanagerassignedtothatdistrictorschool.ThesecasereportsshouldbestandardizedinformandalignedwithcriteriasetforthintheUnifiedImprovementPlanningprocessandwithcriteriausedintheComprehensiveAnalysisforDistrictImprovement(CADI,fordistricts)ortheSchoolSupportTeamvisits(SST,forschools).Panelmembersshouldbeprovidedwithstandardizedcriteriaforevaluationoftheevidenceandselectionofoptions.

•Appropriate panel assignments for decisions.Infulfillingitsstatutorymissiontoreviewrecommendationsfor districtlossofaccreditation,turnaroundplansfordistrictsandschools,andpriorityimprovementplansupon request,theStateReviewPanelshouldbelargeenoughsothateachreviewsituationisstaffedbyasubpanelof personswithbothappropriatesubjectmatterexpertiseandcontextualexpertise/experience.Thus,forexample, aturnaroundplaninanurbancontextmightbenefitmorefromapanelmemberwithurbanexpertise,whilearural turnaroundplanmightbenefitmorefromoneormorememberswithruralexpertise.CDEiscurrentlytakingsteps toensurethatthisisdone.

Thislevelofrigorousreviewrequirescarefulcoordinationandstaffing.Italsorequiresthatthepanelbelargeenoughsothatindividualpanelmembers,whoareservingasvolunteers,arenotoverwhelmedbytheworkload.Alargerpanel

57

canalsoservethestrategicpoliticalpurposeofexpandingthenumberofpeopleinthestatewhoarefamiliarwithandcommittedtoqualityturnaroundwork.Membershipshouldalsohaveastatedduration,suchasathree-yearperiod.

AppendixGhasadditionalideasforstepsCDEmighttaketodevelopandcollectaccurateandcomprehensiveinformation tosupportturnarounddecision-making.

3. Determine the initial capacity of the system to engage in active school turnarounds and estimate the landscape of turnaround operators and leaders needed to carry out the turnarounds.Thestate(orotherSRO)willneedtoestimate theoptimalnumberofschoolsanddistrictsengagedinactiveturnaround,reviewthelikelydemographicandgeographic contextfortheseschoolsanddistricts,anddevelopanunderstandingofthemosteffectiveturnaroundpartnersforthese schools.Thestateshouldalsobepreparedtoconsiderthecapacityoflocaldistrictstoleadturnaroundeffortsand encouragethoseeffortswhentheyarelikelytobeofhighquality,bothasamatterofefficiencyandasanappropriate balancebetweenstateoversightandlocalcontrol.

Werecommendthatthestateconsiderthefollowingfactorsindeterminingthecapacityofthestate’ssystem:

•Aprojectionofthenumberofschoolsanddistrictseligibleformandatorystateinterventionoverafive-yearperiod

•Aprojectionofthenumberofdistrictswithturnaroundschoolsthatarelikelytobecapableofleadingtheirownturnaroundinitiatives,ontheirownorwithaLeadPartner

•Categorizationofturnaroundsituationsintoclustersthatmightbemanagedbyexternalprivateorpublicentitiesorbyaseparatenetworkestablishedinthestate,suchasruralschools,onlineschools,high-povertyschools,etc.

•Projectionofthenumberofthird-partyoperatorsavailableandwillingtoworkonturnaroundinthestate, includingavailablefundingsources

Thestatewillthenneedtocreateatriagesystemtodecidewhichdistrictsandschoolswillbeselectedforactiveentrance intothesystem.Potentialfactorstobeconsideredintriagingdistrictsandschoolscouldinclude:

•Turnaroundstatus

•Numberofstudentsaffected

•Durationoflowperformance

•Performancetrending

•Priorreformsattempted

•Availabilityofthird-partypartnersandproviders

•Availabilityofresourcesforturnaround

•Cost-benefitanalysis

Indevelopingthistriagesystem,thestateshoulderronthesideofstartingslow.Turnaroundsbynatureareextremely disruptive,andtheworstpossibleoutcomeinimplementingS.B.163wouldbetocreatedisarrayinmultiplefailingschools anddistrictswithoutanintensiveandhighlyorganizedwaytoachieverealturnaround.Incontrast,quickanddecisive turnaroundsinahandfulofsituationswillhelpsecurepoliticalsupportforthelongterm.Thestateshouldalsobemindful

58

thatitsbestandprobablymostcost-effectivestrategyformanagingturnaroundnumberswillbepreventingschoolsand districtsfromenteringintopriorityimprovementandturnaroundinthefirstplace,usingatieredsystemofsupportsfor schoolsanddistricts.

Coloradoshouldconsiderwhetheritcanincentivizeschoolsanddistrictstocompeteforentryintothestate’sturnaround system.Althoughthisseemscounterintuitive,itmaybepossibleforthestatetoenterintoagrandbargainwithitsfailing schoolsanddistrictswherebysubstantialturnaroundresourcescanbeexchangedforactivecooperationwithturnaround strategies.ThisapproachisbeingusedinConnecticutwiththeCommissioner’sNetwork,inwhichschoolsapplyforentry.

4. Develop a supply of high-quality third-party lead partners and turnaround operators for school and district turnaround efforts.ThisshouldbeatoppriorityforCDE.TheDepartmentrealisticallycannotplaytheroleofturnaroundprovider,soit mustfindthoseorganizationsthatarewillingandabletodoso.Thestateshouldplantocreateaportfolioofdifferenttypes ofthird-partyproviders,includingcharterschooloperators,districtleadturnaroundpartners,InnovationSchoolpartners,etc.

Tofindthemarket,CDEshouldengagewitheducationstakeholdersinColoradotodeterminewhichofthemmightbe willingandabletoplaysomeoftheseroles.Forexample,wehaveanumberofhigh-qualitycharteroperatorsinthe statethathaveproventheireffectivenesswithstudents.Inaddition,CDEshouldcreateanRFPprocessthatwillalso attractnationalproviders(usinglessonslearnedfrompastRFPprocesses).Theseproviderswillneedtobeconvinced thatengaginginColoradoworkwillbeworththeirtimeandeffort,bothintermsofpaymentforworkperformedand alsointermsofthelikelihoodofsuccess.Coloradoshouldusethisprocesstoaggressivelymarketitselfasanattractive placeintermsofeducationreform–wehavethepolicyframeworkneeded,wehavealonghistoryofschoolautonomy, wehaveacommittedgroupofdistrictsandasupportivestatedepartment,andathrivingeducationreformcommunity.

5. Develop several diverse talent development pipelines for the identification, training, and recruitment of principals and teacher leadersinthespecializedareaofschoolturnaround,andprovideincentivesforturnaroundleadershipteamstotaketemporaryintensiveassignmentsinturnaroundschools.Theseturnaroundpipelinesshouldinclude:

•Routesthattraincurrenteducatorswhodemonstratetalentsandinterestsinlinewithsuccessful turnaround leaders

•Routesthattrainpersonsfromothersectorstobecomeschoolturnaroundleaders

•Routesthattrainturnaroundschoolleadershipteams

•Routesthatrecruitproventurnaroundschoolleadersonanationalbasis

•District-developedroutesthattrainturnaroundschoolleadersfordistrictturnaroundinitiativesinlargerdistrictswithsubstantialnumbersoffailingschools

WerecommendthatColoradotakeamulti-facetedapproachtodevelopingthepipelineofturnaroundleaders.First, CDEneedstoestimatethenumberofturnaroundleadersthatwillbeneededovertime.Thenitshouldenlistavariety oforganizationsthatcanhelpfillthisrole.Somesuggestionsinclude:

•PartneringwiththeUniversityofVirginiaandalocaluniversitytodevelopaturnaroundspecialistcertificate programinColorado

•WorkingwiththeColoradoAssociationofSchoolExecutivestodevelopaturnaroundleadershipstrandinthe newCASELeadershipAcademy

59

•CoordinatenewInnovationSchoolandcharterschoolleadershipneedswithcohortstrainedthrough GetSmartSchools

•WorkwiththeColoradoEducationAssociationandTeachforAmericatoidentifyandtrainteacherleaders whospecializeinturnaround

•IdentifyaTurnaroundCorpsofwell-trainedturnaroundleadershipteamsthatarewillingtotaketemporary assignmentsinturnaroundschools,inexchangeforextrapay

Largerdistrictswithcapacityshouldalsobeencouragedtodeveloptheirownturnaroundspecialistprograms.Currently, Colorado’salternativelicensurepathforprincipalspermitsdistrictstodesignveryflexibleone-yearprogramsfornon- traditionalcareerchangers.CRS22-60.5-305.5.Whilewebelievethatitisoftenbestforprincipalstohaveinstructional experience,webelievethatthetalentpoolavailabletoturnaroundschoolsshouldnotbelimitedtothosewhoseback groundisineducation.Infact,itisentirelypossibletoimagineasuccessfulturnaroundledbyaprincipalwithexperience inbusinessturnaround,partneredwithateacherleadershipteamtrainedinturnaround.

Finally,thestateshouldalsoconsiderincentivestoattractpersonswithdemonstratedsuccessinleadingturnarounds toColorado,tosupplementthenumberofhome-grownturnaroundleaders.

6. Identify and implement policy changesthatallowthestate,districts,andschoolstomorefullytakeadvantageofthe desiredturnaroundpolicy.Forexample,ifthestatewantstocreateanewdistricttoactastheStateRecoveryDistrict, legislationwilllikelyberequired.Inaddition,evenifthecurrentframeworkofS.B.163isretained,thereareglitches thatcouldinterferewithsomeofthestatutoryturnaroundoptions.Werecommendatleastthefollowinglegislative amendmentstoensurethegoalsofS.B.163areachieved:

•Providethatturnaroundoperatorsforschoolsanddistrictsdirectedtoimplementmandatoryturnaround interventionsaregivenmaximumautonomyintheareasofstaffing,scheduling,curriculum,etc.

•Providethatschoolssubjecttoturnaroundmaybedirectedtoimplementoneormoreofthestatutoryoptions

•Providethatschoolssubjecttoturnaroundinterventionsmaybedirectedtocloseandrestart

•ProvidethatdistrictsaccreditedwithPriorityImprovementorTurnaroundPlansloseexclusivecharteringauthority

•Providethatschoolsconvertedintocharterschoolsasaresultofturnaroundmaybedistrict-authorized charterschools,independentcharterschools,orCharterSchoolInstitute-authorizedcharterschools, dependingonthecircumstances

•Clarifythatthestatemaydirectthatschoolsmaybeplacedintoanetworkofsimilarly-situatedturnaroundschools,inadditiontootheractions

•Clarifyhowandunderwhatcircumstancesschoolsmaybereturnedtodistrictmanagement

•ProvidethattheSchoolDistrictOrganizationActdoesnotrequireavoteofelectorstoapproveareorganization orconsolidationplanresultingfromturnaround

7. Develop a turnaround coalitioncomprisedofadvocacyandpractitionergroupstoadviseCDEonitsturnaroundwork, toassistwithturnaroundworkwhereappropriate,toengageinacoordinatedcommunicationsstrategydesignedtoraise publicawarenessaroundturnaroundandschoolimprovement,andtobuildpublicsupportbothforthestate’sturnaround systemgenerallyandforlocalturnaroundefforts.

60

Otherstateshavereliedoncharismaticindividualsforleadership.ObviouscandidatesforthisroleinColoradoinclude thoseinchargeofturnaroundsatCDE,theCommissioner,andthepoliticallypopularGovernor.UnderColorado’s circumstances,however,thebestpersonforthejobmightactuallybeacoalition.Ideally,thosecommittedto Colorado’sturnaroundsystemwillpresentaunitedfrontthatconsistsofeducationreformgroups,practitioners, membershiporganizations,legislators,parentandcommunitygroups,andbusinessleaders.Thisgroupshould deliberatelyundertakeconsistentmessagingthatreinforcesboththeurgencyforturnaroundandtheneedtodo turnaroundwell.Separatecommunicationsstrategiesshouldbedevelopedforeachturnaroundinitiativeforthe purposeofeducatingthecommunityandinvitingtheirsupport–asoneCDEPerformanceManagerstated,“It’s importantthattherebecommunitybuy-in,fromalllevels.”

8. Build state and local capacity for both general and targeted technical assistance to schools and districts not on Turnaroundstatusforthepurposeofdecreasingthenumbersofschoolsanddistrictsthateventuallyneedtobeplaced onTurnaroundandincreasingthenumbersofschoolsanddistrictsthateffectivelyservestudents.Focusingonatiered systemofsupportsthatallowssupporttobedifferentiatedbasedonneedwillultimatelybethemostcost-effectiveway forthestatetokeephigher-functioningschoolsanddistrictsoutofturnaround.Inimplementingthisrecommendation, thestateshouldexpectthatmuchofthetechnicalassistanceneededwillbecommonacrossreforminitiativesand shouldbecoordinated.

WerecommendthatColoradoorganizeitssupporttodistrictsandschoolsinaframeworkthatlooksmuchlikethe ResponsetoInterventionframeworkbeingimplementedinColoradoschoolsnow.ThisTieredSupportFramework presumesthatalldistrictsandschoolswillbenefitfromalevelofuniversalsupportinkeyareassuchasstandards andassessment,dataanalysis,andthelike.Thenextlevelofsupportisgearedatdistrictsandschoolsthatwouldappear tobenefitfromtargetedtechnicalassistance.S.B.163requiresthestatetoprovidethisassistancetoallschoolsand districtswithImprovement,PriorityImprovement,andTurnaroundplans,subjecttoavailableresources.Thenextlevel involvesmoreassistanceforschoolsanddistrictsthatareimplementingtheirownturnaroundandpriorityimprovement plans,andthefinallevelinvolvestheimplementationofturnaroundactionsforschoolsanddistrictswheresuchactions havebeenmandatedbytheStateBoardofEducation.

Liketheworkofturnaround,CDEdoesnothavethecapacitytodothisonitsown.However,itshouldbestrategicabouttheareasoftechnicalassistancethataremostneededinthefield,anddevelopaplanfordeliveringsomeservicesitselfandforarrangingforoutsideconsultantstobematchedtotheneedsofschoolsanddistricts.Werecommendthatthestatere-examinetheuseoffieldservicesofficesandBOCESforthispurpose.Wealsorecommendthatthestateorganizepeernetworksthatcanpairdistrictsandschoolswithsimilarneedsandmatchthemwithanimprovementpartner.SomeideasaboutthetypesoftechnicalassistanceneededarecontainedinAppendixJ.

61

Turnaround Implementation Implementationofmandatoryturnaroundstrategies

Turnaround Assistance

Assistanceinimplementingturnaroundstrategies selectedbyschool/district;changemanagement, schoolboardtraining

Targeted Technical AssistanceTAguidedbydemonstratedneed–mayinclude Englishlanguagedevelopment,aligningcurricula, earlychildhoodprograms,etc.

Universal SupportUniversaltrainingsonstandards-basededucation, dataanalysis,instructionalinterventions,strategic planning,etc.

9. To ensure quality implementation, cost out the components listed above, and solicit investments from the state, the U.S. Department of Education, national and local foundations, and other partners.Indoingthis,thestateshouldplanforbothshort-termprioritiesandlong-termsustainability,andprovideguidancetodistrictsinusingavailablefundstodriveturnaround.Aclearplanforimplementationandabroadcoalitionofadvocatesmakesoureffortsmoreappealingtobothlocalandnationalfunders.ThefullcommitmentoftheGovernorandthestatelegislaturewillbecriticaltothiseffort.

Thisrecommendationshouldnotbereadtomeanthatimplementationmustwaituntilfulllong-termfundingissecured.Thestateanditspartnerscanandshouldbeginimplementingmanyoftheserecommendationsrightnow.

62

CONCLuSiON

Asitbeginsthisneweraofturningaroundlow-performingschoolsanddistricts,Coloradohasmanyadvantages.Wehavethebenefitofapolicyenvironmentthatpromotestheessentialconditionsforturnaround–credibleidentificationoflow-performingschoolsanddistricts,broadauthorityforavarietyofdifferentapproachestoturnaround,multipleoptionsforexternaloperators,includingastatecharteringauthority,andclearconsequencesforfailuretoimprove.Wehaveanationally-recognizeddatasystemthatallowsmanyfactorstobetakenintoconsiderationwhenassessingschoolanddistrictperformance.Wehavearichandvariedlandscapeofeducationstakeholderswhoare,forthemostpart,alignedinseekingrealimprovementsforchildren.Wehaveareputationforreformandqualityoflifethatisattractive totalentacrossthecountry.

Butwealsohavechallenges.Wearenotawell-fundedstate,eitherintermsofstatefundingdollarsorintermsoflocal foundationcapacity,andwe’renotlikelytohavetheequivalentofaHurricaneKatrinaanytimesoontostimulatenational investment.Oureducationgovernanceistraditionallyfragmented,andweareseeingtheresultsofthatintheslow andpainfulimplementationofreformsasbasicasstandardsandassessments.Ourinfrastructureforhigh-quality implementationofstatewidepoliciesisweak.Ourreformpolicieshavecomefastandfuriousinrecentyears,astrength butalsoachallengefordistrictsandschoolsstrugglingtokeepup.

Werecommendthateveryoneinvolvedinmakingdecisionsaboutturnaroundschoolsanddistrictsconsidertwokeypoints. First, in making any decision, the needs of children and youth should be considered first.Thisrequiresadultstohavethe couragetoactivelymakedramaticchangesforthebenefitofstudentswhenwarranted,andtoconsiderotherapproaches incircumstanceswheredramaticchangeisnotfeasibleorbeneficialforstudents.Inotherwords,weshouldstriveto“do noharm”tostudentsinlow-performingschools,whetherthatharmbethroughinactionorinappropriateaction.

Second,theturnaroundinitiativeinColoradoisoneofmanyexcitingandpromisingreforms.Inthepastfewyears, thestatehaspassedlegislationaligningitsP-20educationsystem,updateditscontentstandards,createdanewwayfor schoolstooperateautonomously,passedaneweducatorevaluationsystemthatcallsforstudentgrowthastheprimary indicatorofperformance,anddevelopedaneweducationaccountabilitysystem.Itisintheprocessofdeveloping newassessmentsandpromotingmorepersonalizedlearninginschools.To the extent possible, decisions made about implementing S.B. 163 should align where possible with the state’s important work on other initiatives.Thiswould allowustobetteruseourlimitedresources,andalsoreinforcetheimportanceofallthereformscurrentlyunderway.

WeareconfidentthatColoradowillcometogetherasaneducationcommunitytobuildonourstrengthsandovercomeourchallengesinthisnewinitiativetoturnaroundthelowest-performingschools.Thereisroomforleadershipatalllevelsofthiscommunity,andalltypesofleadersareneededifwearetosucceed.Wehopethatthisreportwillhelpalleducationleadersseearolefortheirorganizationsandtalentinhelpingtoturnaroundourmosttroubledschools.

63

Appendix A – References and Resources

Turnaround References and Resources

AmericanInstitutesforResearch(2011).“ReauthorizingESEA–MakingResearchRelevant.”SchoolTurnaroundPocketGuide.Washington,DC:Author.

AmericanInstitutesforResearch(3rded.,2011).“SchoolRestructuring:WhatWorksWhen:AGuideforEducation Leaders.”Washington,DC:Author.

AmericanInstitutesforResearch(2010).“WhatExperiencefromtheFieldTellsUsaboutSchoolLeadershipand Turnaround.”Washington,DC:Author.

A+Denver(2012).“ColoradoTurnaroundSchools–RaysofHope.”Denver,CO:Author.

Christie,K.(2007).“TheStateRoleinAcceleratingStudentGrowthinLow-PerformingHighSchools.”ECSPolicyBrief.Denver,CO:EducationCommissionoftheStates.

ColoradoDepartmentofEducation(2012).“PriorityImprovementandTurnaroundDistrictsandSchools:ASupplementtotheCDEDistrictAccountabilityHandbook.”Denver,CO:Author.

Corbett,J.(2011).“LeadTurnaroundPartners:HowtheEmergingMarketplaceofLeadTurnaroundPartnersisChangingSchoolImprovement.”CenteronInnovationandImprovement.Lincoln,IL:AcademicDevelopmentInstitute.

DelaTorre,M,andGwynne,J.(2009).“WhenSchoolsClose:EffectsonDisplacedStudentsinChicagoPublicSchools.”Chicago:ConsortiumonChicagoSchoolResearch,UniversityofChicago.

Herman,R.,Dawson,P.,Dee,T.,Greene,J.,Maynard,R.,Redding,S.,andDarwin,M.(2008).“TurningAroundChronicallyLow-PerformingSchools:APracticeGuide.”NCEE#2008-4020.Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationEvaluationandRegionalAssistance,InstituteofEducationSciences,U.S.DepartmentofEducation.

Hill,P.andMurphy,P.(2011).“OnRecoverySchoolDistrictsandStrongerStateEducationAgencies:Lessonsfrom Louisiana.”Seattle,WA:CenteronReinventingPublicEducation.

Huidekoper,P.(2011).“Afterayear,turnaroundschools’performancelackluster.”August11,2011,EdNewsColorado.org.

Kowal,J.andAbleidinger,J.(2012).“SchoolTurnaroundsInColorado:UntanglingaWebofSupportsforStrugglingSchools.”PublicImpact.

Kowal,J.andAbleidinger,J.(2011).“LeadingIndicatorsofSchoolTurnarounds:HowtoKnowWhenDramaticChangeisonTrack.”ChapelHill,NC:PublicImpact;Charlottesville,VA:UniversityofVirginiaDarden/CurryPartnershipforLeadersinEducation.

Kowal,J.,andHassel,E.A.(2011).“ImportingLeadersforSchoolTurnaround:LessonsandOpportunities.”ChapelHill,NC:PublicImpact;Charlottesville,VA:UniversityofVirginiaDarden/CurryPartnershipforLeadersinEducation.

Kutash,J.,Nico,E.,Gorin,E.,Rahmatullah,S.,Tallant,K.(2010).“TheSchoolTurnaroundFieldGuide.”Boston:FSGSocialImpactAdvisors.

MassInsightEducationandResearchInstitute(2012).“BeingBold:AnAssessmentofTurnaroundInitiativesinSelectSchoolDistrictsandStates.”Boston,MA:Author.

APPENDiCES

64

MassInsightEducationandResearchInstitute(2010).“TheDistrictTurnaroundOffice:AComprehensiveSupport StructureforStrugglingSchools.”Boston,MA:Author.

MassInsightEducationandResearchInstitute(2010).“EnablingSchoolTurnaroundthroughStatePolicy.”Boston, MA:Author.

MassInsightEducationandResearchInstitute(2010).“StateTurnaroundOffice:TheFoundationofaStatewideSchoolTurnaroundStrategy.”Boston,MA:Author.

MassInsightEducationandResearchInstitute(2009).“AcademyforUrbanSchoolLeadership,HarvardSchoolof Excellence,Chicago,IL:LeadPartnerManagementforTurnaroundofanExistingSchool.”MeetingtheTurnaround ChallengeSchoolCaseStudy.Boston,MA:Author.

MassInsightEducationandResearchInstitute(2009).“PartnershipZones:UsingSchoolTurnaroundastheEntryPointforRealReform–andReinventingtheDistrictModelintheProcess.”Boston,MA:Author.

MassInsightEducationandResearchInstitute(2009).“SchoolTurnaroundStrategiesThatHaveFailed:HowtoAvoidPastMistakesinAddressingtheNeedsofLow-PerformingSchools.”Boston,MA:Author.

MassInsightEducationandResearchInstitute(2007).“TheTurnaroundChallenge:WhyAmerica’sBestOpportunitytoDramaticallyImproveStudentAchievementLiesinOurWorst-PerformingSchools.”Boston,MA:Author.

McMurrer,J.(2012).“ChangingtheSchoolClimateistheFirstSteptoReforminManySchoolswithFederalImprovementGrants.”Washington,DC:CenteronEducationPolicy,GraduateSchoolofEducationandHumanDevelopment,GeorgeWashingtonUniversity.

McMurrer,J.(2012).“SchoolswithFederalImprovementGrantsFaceChallengesinReplacingPrincipalsandTeachers.”Washington,DC:CenteronEducationPolicy,GraduateSchoolofEducationandHumanDevelopment,George WashingtonUniversity.

Murphy,P.andHill,P.(2011).“TheChangingRoleofStatesinEducation:TheMovefromCompliancetoPerformanceManagement.”2011PIENetworkSummitPolicyBriefs.Minneapolis:PolicyInnovatorsinEducationNetwork.

Perlman,C.andReddington,S.(eds.)(2011).“HandbookonEffectiveImplementationofSchoolImprovementGrants.”CenteronInnovationandImprovement.Lincoln,IL:AcademicDevelopmentInstitute.

PublicImpact(2008).“SchoolTurnaroundLeaders:CompetenciesforSuccess.”ChapelHill,NC:PublicImpactfortheChicagoPublicEducationFund.

PublicImpact(2007).“SchoolTurnarounds:AReviewoftheCross-SectorEvidenceonDramaticOrganizational Improvement.”ChapelHill:Author;Lincoln,IL:AcademicDevelopmentInstitute.

Rhim,L.M.(2011).“LearningtoDanceintheQueenCity:CincinnatiPublicSchools’TurnaroundInitiative.” Charlottesville,VA:UniversityofVirginiaDarden/CurryPartnershipforLeadersinEducation.

Smith,N.(2012).“TheLouisianaRecoveryDistrict:LessonsfortheBuckeyeState.”Columbus,OH: ThomasB.FordhamInstitute.

Steiner,L.andHassel,E.A.(2011).“UsingCompetenciestoImproveSchoolTurnaroundPrincipalSuccess.”ChapelHill,NC:PublicImpact;Charlottesville,VA:UniversityofVirginiaDarden/CurryPartnershipforLeadersinEducation.

65

UniversityofChicagoConsortiumonChicagoSchoolResearch(2012).“TurningAroundLow-PerformingSchoolsin Chicago.”Chicago,IL:Author.

KennethK.WongandFrancisX.Shen(2003).Measuring the Effectiveness of City and State Takeover as a Reform Strategy,78PeabodyJ.ofEduc.89.

other National References and Resources

StudentsFirst(2013).“NationalPolicyReportCard.”Retrievedonlineathttp://reportcard.studentsfirst.org/.

other Colorado References and Resources

Anderson,A.andDeCesare,D.(2006).“OpeningClosedDoors:LessonsfromColorado’sFirstIndependentCharterSchool.”Denver,CO:AugenblickPalaichandAssociates.

BuechnerInstituteforGovernance(2012).“AStudyofOnlineLearning:PerspectivesofOnlineLearnersandEducators.”ReporttotheColoradoDepartmentofEducation,UnitofOnlineLearning.

Benson,D.(2008).“TheStandards-BasedTeaching/LearningCycle:AGuideforColoradoEducatorsonHowtoPut Standards-BasedEducationintoPracticeattheDistrict,SchoolandClassroomLevel.”Denver,CO:ColoradoCoalition forStandards-BasedEducation.

66

Appendix B – S.B. 163’s Accountability Framework

The Accountability Framework of S.B. 163

S.B.163,ortheEducationalAccountabilityAct,waspassedwithbipartisansupportin2009.In2012,thestateappliedforandwasgrantedwaiversfromtheaccountabilityprovisionsofthefederalNoChildLeftBehindlawthatinessenceallowthestatetouseS.B.163asitsprimaryaccountabilitysystem,althoughsomefederalrequirementsarestillineffect.21Asaresult,wewillfocusontheprovisionsofS.B.163andnotfederalaccountabilityrequirements.

S.B.163establishesannualperformanceassessmentsandcontinuousimprovementplanningprocessesforschoolsanddistricts.Italsoprovidesforsignificantinterventionsindistrictsandschoolsthatarepersistentlylow-performing.Attheendofthisprocess,decision-makingauthoritycanbecompletelyremovedfromfailingdistrictsandschools.Thisapproachrepresentsabalancingofalocalschoolboard’sconstitutionalrighttocontrolinstructioninitsschools(Colo.Constitution,Art.IX,sec.15)withtheStateBoardofEducation’sconstitutionalresponsibilityforoversightofthestate’seducationalsystem(Colo.Constitution,Art.IX,sec.1).22

The Improvement Planning Process

UnderS.B.163,allpublicschoolsanddistrictsareassessedbasedonSchoolandDistrictPerformanceFrameworks, respectively,andareprovidedwiththeresultsofthatassessment.Thestatutoryimprovementplanningprocessthen directseachorganizationtocompleteanin-depthdataanalysisthatlooksatperformancetargetsandtrendsand identifiesrootcausesofpoorperformance.Theschoolordistrictthenselectsappropriateimprovementstrategiesbased onitsanalysis,andcreatesanimplementationplandesignedtoimproveperformance.Thetypeofplanrequireddepends uponthelevelofpriorperformance,andisassignedbytheStateBoardofEducationupontherecommendationofthe ColoradoDepartmentofEducation.Districtsarealsoaccreditedthroughthisprocess.Thiscycleoccursonanannualbasis.

The District Performance Framework and Accreditation Ratings

DistrictPerformanceFrameworksmeasuredistrictperformanceinfourareas:academicachievement;academicgrowth; academicgrowthgaps;andpost-secondaryandworkforcereadiness.TheDistrictPerformanceFrameworkisalsoapplied toassesstheperformanceofthestateCharterSchoolInstitute,whichoperatesasalocaleducationagencyforthecharterschoolsitauthorizes,andanyBoardsofCooperativeEducationalServices(BOCES)thatoperateschoolsservingstudents.23

21Colorado’sapprovedwaiverapplicationisavailableontheColoradoDepartmentofEducationwebsiteathttp://www.cde.state.co.us/ Accountability/NCLBWaiver.asp.

22Seee.g.,Hazletv.Gaunt,126Colo.385,250P.2d188(1952);Owens,ColoradoGovernorv.ColoradoCongressofParents,TeachersandStudents,92P.3d933(Colo.2004)

23Forpurposesofthisreport,theterm“district”willalsoincludetheCharterSchoolInstituteandanyBOCESsubjecttotheDistrictPerformanceFramework,unlessspecificallystatedotherwise.

67

BecausetheDistrictPerformanceFrameworkreliesonlongitudinalacademicgrowthcalculatedbythesophisticatedColorado GrowthModelaswellasdataaboutstudentpoint-in-timeacademicperformance,itisgenerallyconsideredcrediblebytheeducationcommunityinthestate.Academicgrowthandperformancedataiscurrentlylimitedtowhatcanbeshownbystateassessmentsinreading,writing,math,scienceandEnglishproficiency,andbydropoutandgraduationrates.

ScoresobtainedontheDistrictPerformanceFrameworksareusedtoassignaccreditationstatustodistricts.Therearesixpossiblecategoriesofaccreditation:

•Accredited with Distinction–assignedtodistrictsscoring80percentoraboveofpointspossibleontheDPF

•Accredited–assignedtodistrictsscoringbetween64and80percent

•Accredited with Improvement Plan–assignedtodistrictsscoringbetween52and64percent

•Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan–assignedtodistrictsscoringbetween42and52percent

•Accredited with Turnaround Plan–assignedtodistrictsscoringlessthan42percent

• Not Accredited–mayberecommendedfordistrictsthatmeetthestatutorycriteriaforlossofaccreditation duetochronicunderperformanceand/orfinancialproblems

Theplansthatdistrictsmustsubmittothestatedependupontheirlevelsofaccreditation.Districtsthatareaccreditedoraccreditedwithdistinctionmustsubmitperformanceplans;districtsinotherlevelsmustsubmitthetypesofplansindicatedbytheiraccreditation.Dependingontheircircumstances,districtsmayberequiredtosubmitadditionaladdendatomeetotherprogramrequirementsnotaddressedthroughtheimprovementplan,suchasfederalrequirements.

The School Performance Framework and Plan Assignments

SchoolPerformanceFrameworksusethesamefourcomponentstoevaluateindividualschoolperformance(exceptthat thePost-SecondaryandWorkforceReadinesscomponentappliesonlytoschoolsgraduatingstudentsfromhighschool). Thestatedoesnotaccreditschools,butusestheSPFtocategorizeschoolsbythetypeofplantheyarerequiredtosubmit inthestate’sUnifiedImprovementPlanningprocess.Districtsaccredittheirownschools,andmaybemoredemandingthanthestate’srequirements.Again,thefocusonbothgrowthandperformancehasledtoacceptanceoftheSPFforschoolperformanceassessment.

DPF Component DPF Component how Measured

Studentachievement Percentageofstudentsinthedistrictscoringproficientorhigherin statewideassessmentsinreading,writing,math,andscience

Studentacademicgrowth Mediangrowthpercentileforthedistrictinmath,reading,writing, andEnglishproficiency

Post-secondaryandworkforcereadiness AverageACTcompositescores;studentdropoutratesandoverall anddisaggregatedgraduationrates

Studentacademicgrowthgaps Mediangrowthpercentileinthedistrictinmath,reading,andwriting andfordisaggregatedsubgroups

68

ThestateassignsfourtypesofplanstoschoolsasaresultoftheSchoolPerformanceFramework:

•Performance Plan–assignedtoelementaryandmiddleschoolsreceiving59percentormoreofpossible points,andtohighschoolsreceiving60percentormoreofpossiblepoints

•Improvement Plan–assignedtoelementaryandmiddleschoolsreceivingbetween46and58points,and tohighschoolsreceivingbetween47percentand59percent

•Priority Improvement Plan–assignedtoelementaryandmiddleschoolsreceivingbetween37and46percent, andtohighschoolsreceivingbetween33percentand46percent

•Turnaround Plan–assignedtoelementaryandmiddleschoolsreceivinglessthan37percentoftotalpossiblepoints,andtohighschoolsreceivinglessthan33percentoftotalpossiblepoints

Eachdistrictisrequiredtoreviewandapprovetheplanssubmittedbyallschoolsinthedistrict.Forschoolslocatedindistrictswith1,000orfewerstudents,thedistrictmaysubmitasingleplanforthedistrictanditsschools;fordistrictsbetween1,000and1,200students,thedistrictmayrequestapprovalforsubmittingasingleplan.

Developing and Submitting Plans

AllplansrequiredunderS.B.163mustincludecertaincommoncomponents,suchasidentificationoftrends,rootcauses, targets,andresearch-basedimprovementstrategies.S.B.163envisionsthatschoolsanddistrictswithhigherperformance willbesubjecttolessoversightandreviewintheplanningprocess.Conversely,schoolsanddistrictswithlowerperformance aresubjecttogreaterreview.Forexample,schoolswithPerformancePlansneedonlydeveloptheirplanwithinputfrom thesuperintendentandschoolaccountabilitycommittee.ForschoolswithImprovementPlans,thelocalschoolboard mustholdpublichearings,andthelocalschoolboardmustformallyadoptpriorityimprovementandturnaroundplans inadditiontoholdingpublichearingsandsolicitinginputfromschoolanddistrictaccountabilitycommittees.TheState ReviewPanelestablishedbyS.B.163addsanotherlayerofreview,withamandatoryassessmentbythePanelofalldistrict andschoolTurnaroundPlansandreviewuponrequestoftheCommissionerofPriorityImprovementplans.CDEstaffalso reviewallPriorityImprovementandTurnaroundPlansandmayrecommendchanges.

24The“clock”doesnotstartuntiltheacademicyearafterthestateordistrictreceivesitsplancategory.So,forexample,aschoolassigned toaPriorityImprovementPlaninDecember2012is“ontheclock”withthatplanasofJuly1,2013.

SPF Component how Measured

Studentachievement Percentageofstudentsintheschoolscoringproficientorhigherin statewideassessmentsinreading,writing,math,andscience

Studentacademicgrowth Mediangrowthpercentilefortheschoolinmath,reading,writing, andEnglishproficiency

Post-secondaryandworkforcereadiness AverageACTcompositescores;studentdropoutratesandoverall anddisaggregatedgraduationrates

Studentacademicgrowthgaps Mediangrowthpercentileintheschoolinmath,reading,andwriting andfordisaggregatedsubgroups

69

Asschoolsanddistrictsareidentifiedaspersistentlylow-performing,theyhavelessandlessdiscretionintheselection ofplanstrategiesandareatriskofbeingsubjecttodramaticturnaroundactions.SchoolsanddistrictswithTurnaround PlanarerequiredtoselectamongturnaroundinterventionsspecifiedinS.B.163.Districtsandschoolsthatarenot makingsubstantialimprovementunderaTurnaroundPlan,andthosewhohavebeenonpriorityimprovementor turnaroundstatusformorethanfiveconsecutiveyears,aresubjecttostate-mandatedturnaroundinterventionsselected bytheStateBoardofEducation.Thisfive-yeartimeperiodiscommonlyreferredtoas“theclock”–so,forexample,a schoolthathasreceivedaPriorityImprovementPlanassignmentforthreeconsecutiveyearsisreferredtoasonthe clockinyear3.24Ifaschoolordistricthasbeenontheclockbecauseithasbeenonpriorityimprovementorturnaround status,animprovementinperformancetoanImprovementPlanorhigherwilltakeitofftheclock.AsubsequentPriority ImprovementorTurnaroundplanassignmentwillrestarttheclockoveragainatthebeginning.

Required Turnaround Plan Components

S.B.163specifiesthestrategiesthatmustbepartofTurnaroundPlans,forschoolsanddistrictsthatarenotyeteligibleforstate-mandatedinterventions.SchoolswithTurnaroundPlansmustselectoneormoreofthefollowingstrategies:

•EmployingaleadturnaroundpartnertodevelopandexecutetheTurnaroundPlanattheschool

•Reorganizingtheoversightandmanagementstructurewithintheschool

•SeekingrecognitionasanInnovationSchool

•Contractingwithathirdparty(publicorprivate)tomanagetheschool

•Convertingtoacharterschool

•Foracharterschool,significantlyrestructuringthecharter

•“Otheractionsofcomparableorgreatersignificance,”includingthoseidentifiedunderESEA:

0 Closure

0Restartingwithachartermanagementorganizationoraneducationalmanagementorganization

0Turnaround,definedas

♦ Replacingprincipalandatleasthalfofstaff

♦ Revisinginstructionalprogram

♦ Expandinglearningtime

♦ Implementingoperatingflexibility

0Transformation,definedas

♦ Principal replaced

♦ Changesinlearningtime,instruction,etc.

70

DistrictswithTurnaroundPlansmustidentifyoneormoreofthefollowingstrategies:

•EmployingaleadturnaroundpartnertodevelopandexecutetheTurnaroundPlanatthedistrictanditsschools

•Reorganizingtheoversightandmanagementstructureinthedistrict

•RecognizingoneormoredistrictschoolsasInnovationSchools

•Contractingwithathirdpartytooperateoneormoredistrictschools

•Convertingoneormoredistrictschoolstocharterschools

•FortheCharterSchoolInstitute,significantlyrestructuringtheInstitute’schartercontract

•Closingoneormoredistrictschools

•Otheractionsofcomparableorgreatersignificance(notspecified)

TheStateReviewPanelestablishedbyS.B.163isrequiredtoreviewalldistrictandschoolturnaroundplansandmakerecommendationstotheCommissionerformodifications.

Mandatory Closure or Restructuring

Ifaschoolordistricthasbeenassignedaturnaroundorpriorityimprovementplanformorethanfiveconsecutiveyears(hasspentfiveyears“ontheclock”),orhasfailedtomakesubstantialprogressunderaturnaroundplan,S.B.163 mandatesthattheStateBoardofEducationdirectthatspecificactionbetaken,whichmaybeuptoandincluding closureofthedistrictorschool.Failuretomakesubstantialprogressunderaturnaroundplanmeansthatthetargets setintheplanhavenotbeenmet,orprogresshasnotbeensubstantialenoughtolifttheschoolordistricttothe PriorityImprovementlevelorhigher.

For schoolsinthissituation,S.B.163callsforrestructuring.TheCommissionerreferstheschooltotheStateReviewPanel,whichischargedwithcriticallyevaluatingtheschool’sperformanceandrecommendingoneormoreofthefollowing:

•Thattheschoolbeclosedoritscharterrevoked

•Thattheschoolbemanagedbyaprivateorpublicentityotherthanthedistrict

•Thattheschoolbeconvertedtoacharterschool

•Thattheschool,ifalreadyacharter,replaceitscurrentoperatorandgoverningboard

•ThattheschoolbedesignatedanInnovationSchool

TheStateReviewPanelthenpresentsitsrecommendationstotheStateBoardofEducationandtheCommissioner,andtheStateBoarddetermineswhichaction/sarerequiredanddirectstheschoolboardtoimplementthem.C.R.S.22-210(5).

For districtsinthissituation,CDEmayrecommendthatthedistrictloseaccreditation.C.R.S.sec.22-11-209(1).This recommendationtriggersreviewbytheStateReviewPanelforthepurposeofcriticallyevaluatingthesituationand recommendingoneormoreofthefollowingactions:

71

•ThatthedistrictbereorganizedorconsolidatedundertheSchoolDistrictReorganizationAct

•Thatmanagementofthedistrictand/oroneormoreofitsschoolsbetakenoverbyadifferentprivate orpublicentity(withtheconsentofthedistrict)

•Thatoneormoreofthedistrict’sschoolsbeconvertedintocharterschools

•Thatoneormoreofthedistrict’sschoolsbedesignatedInnovationSchools

•Thatoneormoreofthedistrict’sschoolsbeclosed

Ifadistrictdoesnothaveanyschoolsoperatinginitsboundariesforatleastthreemonths,itlosesitsshareofschoolfundingforthatyear.Colo.Const.art.IX,sec.2.

Inmakingitsrecommendations,theStateReviewPanelisrequiredtoconsidertheleadershipcapacityinthedistrict(includingthecapacitytoplanforandimplementchange),theadequacyofthedistrict’sinfrastructuretosupportschoolimprovement,thereadinessofthedistricttoengagewithanexternalpartner,thelikelihoodthatcurrentmanagementstructureandstaffingwillallowforpositivereturnsonstateinvestments,andthenecessitythatthedistrictremaininoperationtoservicestudents.C.R.S.22-11-209(2).

ThematterthengoestotheStateBoardofEducation,whichconsiderstherecommendationsoftheStateReviewPanel,thedepartment,andtheCommissioner,anddetermineswhethertoremoveaccreditation.Ifthedistrictisnotclosedorconsolidated,theStateBoardspecifiestheactionsthatmustbetakenforaccreditationtobereinstatedanddirectsthedistricttotakethoseactions.C.R.S.22-11-209(3).

72

2012

CDE

Sch

ool P

lan

Type

Rec

omm

enda

tions

(Fin

al R

ecom

men

datio

ns 1

2/05

/12)

- w

ith 2

010

and

2011

SPF

resu

lts

Dist

rict N

ame

Scho

ol N

ame

EMH

Leve

ls

Serv

ed

Char

ter

e/on

line

# K-

12

stud

ent

s 201

2

K-12

%

FRL

2012

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2010

2010

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2011

2011

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2012

2012

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Ente

ring

Year

on

PI/T

A

ADAM

S 12

FIV

E ST

AR S

CHO

OLS

CORO

NAD

O H

ILLS

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

514

91.3

42.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

33.8

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3AD

AMS

12 F

IVE

STAR

SCH

OO

LSHI

LLCR

EST

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E49

678

.452

.2Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n44

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

35.8

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

2AD

AMS

12 F

IVE

STAR

SCH

OO

LSCO

LORA

DO V

IRTU

AL A

CADE

MY

(CO

VA)

EMH

CH/O

L4,

602

27.4

41.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

38.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3AD

AMS

12 F

IVE

STAR

SCH

OO

LSTH

ORN

TON

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

430

85.4

37.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

37.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3

ADAM

S 12

FIV

E ST

AR S

CHO

OLS

THE

INTE

RNAT

ION

AL S

CHO

OL

AT T

HORN

TON

M

IDDL

EM

796

85.2

47.1

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

43Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n42

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

ADAM

S 12

FIV

E ST

AR S

CHO

OLS

FEDE

RAL

HEIG

HTS

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E57

593

.743

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n44

.9Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3AD

AMS

12 F

IVE

STAR

SCH

OO

LSLE

ROY

DRIV

E EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

432

65.7

66.3

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n60

.5Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

46.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1AD

AMS

12 F

IVE

STAR

SCH

OO

LSST

UKE

Y EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

329

83.3

41.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

60.5

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n46

.5Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

ADAM

S CO

UN

TY 1

4LE

STER

R A

RNO

LD H

IGH

SCHO

OL

H25

651

.634

.2Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n33

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

28.9

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

Year

3AD

AMS

COU

NTY

14

ADAM

S CI

TY H

IGH

SCHO

OL

H17

4875

.134

.5Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n34

.9Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n35

.9Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

ADAM

S CO

UN

TY 1

4RO

SE H

ILL

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E47

988

.934

.4Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n38

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n38

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

ADAM

S CO

UN

TY 1

4CE

NTR

AL E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E55

187

.548

.3Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n48

.8Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n44

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

ADAM

S CO

UN

TY 1

4AD

AMS

CITY

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M76

288

.351

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

46.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2

ADAM

S-AR

APAH

OE

28J

NEW

AM

ERIC

A SC

HOO

LH

CH51

563

.933

.3AE

C: D

efau

lt Im

prov

emen

t37

.3AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

an30

.7AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

anYe

ar 2

ADAM

S-AR

APAH

OE

28J

APS

ON

LIN

E SC

HOO

LH

OL

121

33.9

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n25

.1Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n32

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

2AD

AMS-

ARAP

AHO

E 28

JAR

KAN

SAS

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E47

466

.734

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

39.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

34.8

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3AD

AMS-

ARAP

AHO

E 28

JJE

WEL

L EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

522

71.7

54.6

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

44.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

35.7

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

2AD

AMS-

ARAP

AHO

E 28

JBO

STO

N K

-8 S

CHO

OL

EM48

986

.153

.1Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n46

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n38

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

ADAM

S-AR

APAH

OE

28J

AURO

RA C

ENTR

AL H

IGH

SCHO

OL

H22

7072

.437

.5Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n45

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n41

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

ADAM

S-AR

APAH

OE

28J

CRAW

FORD

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

699

89.6

50Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n42

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

ADAM

S-AR

APAH

OE

28J

FLET

CHER

INTE

RMED

IATE

SCI

ENCE

& T

ECHN

OLO

GY

SCHO

OL

EM29

096

.247

.2Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n42

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

ADAM

S-AR

APAH

OE

28J

KEN

TON

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

512

85.9

50Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n42

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

ADAM

S-AR

APAH

OE

28J

PARI

S EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

439

93.2

44.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

48.4

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1AD

AMS-

ARAP

AHO

E 28

JM

RACH

EK M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

930

7047

.3Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n36

.9Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n45

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

ADAM

S-AR

APAH

OE

28J

SIXT

H AV

ENU

E EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

597

83.9

49.6

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

43.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2AG

UIL

AR R

EORG

ANIZ

ED 6

AGU

ILAR

JUN

IOR-

SEN

IOR

HIGH

SCH

OO

LM

H31

83.9

41.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

35.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3

ALAM

OSA

RE-

11J

ALAM

OSA

OM

BUDS

MAN

SCH

OO

L O

F EX

CELL

ENCE

MH

6167

.225

.3Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 1

ALAM

OSA

RE-

11J

ALAM

OSA

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

1034

84.1

40.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1AR

CHU

LETA

CO

UN

TY 5

0 JT

ARCH

ULE

TA C

OU

NTY

HIG

H SC

HOO

LH

887

.525

AEC:

Def

ault

Impr

ovem

ent

25.1

AEC:

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

25.1

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

Year

1AR

RIBA

-FLA

GLER

C-2

0FL

AGLE

R EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

8749

.435

.4Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n31

.3Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n39

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

BETH

UN

E R-

5BE

THU

NE

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E68

80.9

39.4

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

51.6

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

39.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1

BOU

LDER

VAL

LEY

RE 2

JUST

ICE

HIGH

CHA

RTER

SCH

OO

LM

HCH

9971

.725

.6AE

C: D

efau

lt Im

prov

emen

t25

.2AE

C: P

erfo

rman

ce P

lan

25.2

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

Year

1

BRIG

HTO

N 2

7JBR

IGHT

ON

HER

ITAG

E AC

ADEM

YM

H97

7.2

32.4

AEC:

Def

ault

Impr

ovem

ent

36.7

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

25.6

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

Year

2BR

IGHT

ON

27J

SECO

ND

CREE

K EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

625

31.2

59.2

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n53

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

BRIG

HTO

N 2

7JN

ORT

H EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

315

80.3

67.2

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n43

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n44

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

BRIG

HTO

N 2

7JN

ORT

HEAS

T EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

526

59.1

31.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

35.5

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

45.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3

Appendix C – Schools Assigned Priority Improvement and Turnaround Plans

73

2012

CDE

Sch

ool P

lan

Type

Rec

omm

enda

tions

(Fin

al R

ecom

men

datio

ns 1

2/05

/12)

- w

ith 2

010

and

2011

SPF

resu

lts

Dist

rict N

ame

Scho

ol N

ame

EMH

Leve

ls

Serv

ed

Char

ter

e/on

line

# K-

12

stud

ent

s 201

2

K-12

%

FRL

2012

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2010

2010

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2011

2011

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2012

2012

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Ente

ring

Year

on

PI/T

A

BRIG

HTO

N 2

7JO

VERL

AND

TRAI

L M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

666

51.2

53.3

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

50Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n45

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

BRU

SH R

E-2(

J)BE

AVER

VAL

LEY

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E31

967

.156

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

53.8

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

46.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1BU

RLIN

GTO

N R

E-6J

BURL

INGT

ON

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

EM22

262

.247

.3Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n42

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n40

.2Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

CAN

ON

CIT

Y RE

-1M

CKIN

LEY

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E24

954

.651

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

41.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

36.7

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

2CE

NTE

NN

IAL

R-1

CEN

TEN

NIA

L EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

9888

.8Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n37

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

CEN

TEN

NIA

L R-

1CE

NTE

NN

IAL

JUN

IOR

HIGH

SCH

OO

LM

2495

.849

.2Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n54

.2Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n44

.3Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

CEN

TER

26 JT

THE

ACAD

EMIC

REC

OVE

RY C

ENTE

R O

F SA

N L

UIS

VA

LLEY

H7

85.7

25AE

C: D

efau

lt Im

prov

emen

t25

.1AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

an35

.1AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

anYe

ar 2

CEN

TER

26 JT

HASK

IN E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E28

990

.339

.1Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n44

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n44

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

CHAR

TER

SCHO

OL

INST

ITU

TEGO

AL A

CADE

MY

MH

CH/O

L25

9071

.728

.7AE

C: D

efau

lt Im

prov

emen

t26

.2AE

C: Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n31

.8AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

anYe

ar 1

CHAR

TER

SCHO

OL

INST

ITU

TEYO

UTH

& F

AMIL

Y AC

ADEM

Y CH

ARTE

RM

HCH

160

79.4

45.7

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

32AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

an33

.9AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

anYe

ar 3

CHAR

TER

SCHO

OL

INST

ITU

TECO

LORA

DO P

ROVO

ST A

CADE

MY

HCH

/OL

309

40.5

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n43

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n38

.3Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

CHAR

TER

SCHO

OL

INST

ITU

TEM

OU

NTA

IN M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

CH16

81.

840

.2Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

CHAR

TER

SCHO

OL

INST

ITU

TESC

HOLA

RS T

O L

EADE

RS A

CADE

MY

EMCH

273

83.2

43.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

55.2

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1CH

ARTE

R SC

HOO

L IN

STIT

UTE

COLO

RADO

CAL

VERT

ACA

DEM

YEM

CH/O

L19

329

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n40

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n45

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

CHAR

TER

SCHO

OL

INST

ITU

TEFR

ON

TIER

CHA

RTER

ACA

DEM

YEM

CH62

48.4

44.4

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.4

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3CH

ARTE

R SC

HOO

L IN

STIT

UTE

EARL

Y CO

LLEG

E O

F AR

VADA

MH

CH22

625

.776

.5Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

57.2

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

51.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1CH

ARTE

R SC

HOO

L IN

STIT

UTE

STO

NE

CREE

K SC

HOO

LEM

CH23

810

.577

.1Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

77.7

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n76

.9Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

CHER

AW 3

1CH

ERAW

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

9347

.350

.2Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n32

.7Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n42

.5Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

COLO

RADO

SPR

INGS

11

JACK

SW

IGER

T AE

ROSP

ACE

ACAD

EMY

M49

186

.231

.1Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n32

.2Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n38

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

COLO

RADO

SPR

INGS

11

ACHI

EVEK

12EM

HO

L19

629

.6Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n42

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

39.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2CO

LORA

DO S

PRIN

GS 1

1BA

TES

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E19

461

.968

.8Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

60.5

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n39

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

COLO

RADO

SPR

INGS

11

HEN

RY E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E35

669

.751

.7Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n41

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n42

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

COLO

RADO

SPR

INGS

11

SPAC

E TE

CHN

OLO

GY A

ND

ARTS

ACA

DEM

Y (S

TAR

ACAD

EMY)

EMCH

449

70.8

43.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3CO

LORA

DO S

PRIN

GS 1

1PE

NRO

SE E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E38

255

.244

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n49

.5Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n46

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

COLO

RADO

SPR

INGS

11

WAS

SON

HIG

H SC

HOO

LH

977

65.7

53.7

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

56.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

50.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1AC

ADEM

Y O

F U

RBAN

LEA

RNIN

GH

CH15

485

.125

AEC:

Def

ault

Impr

ovem

ent

25.2

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

25.1

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

Year

2

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1CO

LORA

DO H

IGH

SCHO

OL

HCH

177

60.5

25AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

an25

.1AE

C: T

urna

roun

d Pl

an25

.1AE

C: T

urna

roun

d Pl

anYe

ar 3

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1DE

NVE

R CE

NTE

R FO

R 21

ST L

EARN

ING

AT W

YMAN

MH

215

70.2

25.2

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

Year

1DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

SUM

MIT

ACA

DEM

YH

224

70.1

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n25

.2AE

C: T

urna

roun

d Pl

an25

.2AE

C: T

urna

roun

d Pl

anYe

ar 2

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1CO

NTE

MPO

RARY

LEA

RNIN

G AC

ADEM

Y HI

GH

SCHO

OL

H22

172

.437

.5AE

C: D

efau

lt Im

prov

emen

t36

.8AE

C: T

urna

roun

d Pl

an30

.1AE

C: T

urna

roun

d Pl

anYe

ar 2

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1P.

R.E.

P.M

H11

382

.375

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

25.2

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

32.2

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

Year

3

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1FL

ORE

NCE

CRI

TTEN

TON

HIG

H SC

HOO

LH

126

87.3

37.5

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

34.1

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

32.9

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

Year

3

74

2012

CDE

Sch

ool P

lan

Type

Rec

omm

enda

tions

(Fin

al R

ecom

men

datio

ns 1

2/05

/12)

- w

ith 2

010

and

2011

SPF

resu

lts

Dist

rict N

ame

Scho

ol N

ame

EMH

Leve

ls

Serv

ed

Char

ter

e/on

line

# K-

12

stud

ent

s 201

2

K-12

%

FRL

2012

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2010

2010

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2011

2011

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2012

2012

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Ente

ring

Year

on

PI/T

A

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1AC

E CO

MM

UN

ITY

CHAL

LEN

GE S

CHO

OL

MH

CH21

786

.638

.1AE

C: P

erfo

rman

ce P

lan

33.8

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

33.9

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

Year

2

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1M

ATHE

MAT

ICS

AND

SCIE

NCE

LEA

DERS

HIP

ACAD

EMY

E30

295

.7Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

25.2

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

34.6

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

2DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

ESCU

ELA

TLAT

ELO

LCO

SCH

OO

LEM

H13

573

.343

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n40

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n35

.8Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 3

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1JU

STIC

E HI

GH S

CHO

OL

DEN

VER

HCH

128

91.4

25AE

C: P

erfo

rman

ce P

lan

41.7

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

37.6

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

Year

2DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

MU

NRO

E EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

588

9837

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n49

.6Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n39

.9Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1M

ON

TBEL

LO H

IGH

SCHO

OL

H83

182

.141

.2Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n44

.2Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n40

.8Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 3

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1RA

CHEL

B. N

OEL

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M21

088

.643

.8Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n38

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

41.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

GILP

IN M

ON

TESS

ORI

PU

BLIC

SCH

OO

LE

205

81.5

47.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

50.8

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 1

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1CE

NTE

NN

IAL

ECE-

8 SC

HOO

LEM

506

82.2

46.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

52.6

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.1

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

1DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

JOHN

SON

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

417

97.1

72.9

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n49

.3Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

1DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

WES

T HI

GH S

CHO

OL

H52

684

.444

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n40

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

43.1

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

ASHL

EY E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E31

596

.851

.6Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.4Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 2

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1CO

LUM

BIN

E EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

243

92.2

59.4

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n58

.7Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.8Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 1

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1SM

ITH

REN

AISS

ANCE

SCH

OO

LE

331

98.8

63Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n27

.1Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n44

.9Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 3

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1CA

STRO

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

625

98.1

56.8

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

63.1

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n45

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1CO

LLEG

E VI

EW E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E39

298

49.6

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

44.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

DEN

VER

ON

LIN

E HI

GH S

CHO

OL

HO

L11

729

.146

.1Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n52

.5Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n46

.5Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1GR

EEN

LEE

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E32

494

.8Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

30.8

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

47.4

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

2DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

KEPN

ER M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

978

97.2

45Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n50

.1Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n47

.4Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 1

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1W

YATT

-EDI

SON

CHA

RTER

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LEM

CH63

594

.861

.7Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

61.1

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

47.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

SMIL

EY M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

206

81.1

58.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

48.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

SOU

THW

EST

EARL

Y CO

LLEG

EH

CH32

476

.560

.6Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n49

.5Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n50

.9Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1N

ORT

HEAS

T AC

ADEM

Y CH

ARTE

R SC

HOO

LEM

CH23

992

.151

.3Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n35

.5Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n52

.8Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 3

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1TR

EVIS

TA E

CE-8

AT

HORA

CE M

ANN

EM52

196

41.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

44.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

52.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

MAX

WEL

L EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

449

95.8

53.8

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

43.8

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

52.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

BARR

ETT

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E16

594

.657

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n53

.9Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 3

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1CE

SAR

CHAV

EZ A

CADE

MY

DEN

VER

EMCH

441

88.9

53.4

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

54.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

BRU

CE R

ANDO

LPH

SCHO

OL

MH

911

96.2

54.3

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

55.4

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

57.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1DE

NVE

R CO

UN

TY 1

GOLD

RICK

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

573

95.1

66.1

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n51

.9Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n59

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

DOLO

RES

COU

NTY

RE

NO

.2SE

VEN

TH S

TREE

T EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

123

51.2

45.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

50.6

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1DO

UGL

AS C

OU

NTY

RE

1HO

PE O

N-L

INE

EMH

CH/O

L30

7956

.429

.1Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n33

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n38

.3Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

DOU

GLAS

CO

UN

TY R

E 1

EAGL

E AC

ADEM

YH

103

8.7

50Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n41

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n41

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

DOU

GLAS

CO

UN

TY R

E 1

EDCS

D: C

OLO

RADO

CYB

ER S

CHO

OL

EMH

OL

232

9.1

39.8

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

44.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

41.4

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3DU

RAN

GO 9

-RFL

ORI

DA M

ESA

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E30

447

.446

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n53

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1

EAGL

E CO

UN

TY R

E 50

RED

CAN

YON

HIG

H SC

HOO

LH

130

43.1

33.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

25.2

AEC:

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

29.6

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

Year

1EA

GLE

COU

NTY

RE

50N

EW A

MER

ICA

CHAR

TER

SCHO

OL

HCH

3444

.125

AEC:

Def

ault

Impr

ovem

ent

25.2

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

35.4

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

Year

2FA

LCO

N 4

9FA

LCO

N V

IRTU

AL A

CADE

MY

EMH

OL

806

0Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

40.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

43.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2FR

EMO

NT

RE-2

PEN

ROSE

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

247

53.9

51.6

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

52.7

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

41.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1FR

EMO

NT

RE-2

FREM

ON

T M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

360

52.5

44.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

43.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3

75

2012

CDE

Sch

ool P

lan

Type

Rec

omm

enda

tions

(Fin

al R

ecom

men

datio

ns 1

2/05

/12)

- w

ith 2

010

and

2011

SPF

resu

lts

Dist

rict N

ame

Scho

ol N

ame

EMH

Leve

ls

Serv

ed

Char

ter

e/on

line

# K-

12

stud

ent

s 201

2

K-12

%

FRL

2012

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2010

2010

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2011

2011

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2012

2012

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Ente

ring

Year

on

PI/T

A

GILP

IN C

OU

NTY

RE-

1GI

LPIN

CO

UN

TY E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E18

431

.559

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n54

.9Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n42

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

GREE

LEY

6JO

HN E

VAN

S M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

651

85.9

26.7

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

31.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

36.4

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3GR

EELE

Y 6

MAR

TIN

EZ E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E57

994

.851

.9Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n46

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n38

.5Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

GREE

LEY

6FR

ANKL

IN M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

768

83.3

46.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

38.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3GR

EELE

Y 6

BREN

TWO

OD

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M63

877

.751

.8Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n52

.7Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n42

.7Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

GREE

LEY

6N

ORT

HRID

GE H

IGH

SCHO

OL

H96

967

49.9

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

43.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2GR

EELE

Y 6

MAD

ISO

N E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E52

894

.950

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

50.6

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

44.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1GR

EELE

Y 6

MAP

LEW

OO

D EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

600

95.7

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n37

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n44

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

GREE

LEY

6EA

ST M

EMO

RIAL

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

575

90.8

44.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

48.5

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

HARR

ISO

N 2

BRIC

KER

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E36

983

.775

.5Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

51.3

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

43Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

HUER

FAN

O R

E-1

PEAK

VIEW

SCH

OO

LEM

287

81.9

43.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

44.4

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3IG

NAC

IO 1

1 JT

IGN

ACIO

JUN

IOR

HIGH

SCH

OO

LM

129

63.6

47.7

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

35.2

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

37Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 2

IGN

ACIO

11

JTIG

NAC

IO IN

TERM

EDIA

TE S

CHO

OL

E17

064

.134

.3Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n44

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n41

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

JEFF

ERSO

N C

OU

NTY

R-1

BRAD

Y EX

PLO

RATI

ON

SCH

OO

LH

288

62.5

32.9

AEC:

Def

ault

Impr

ovem

ent

28.1

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

31.3

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

Year

2

JEFF

ERSO

N C

OU

NTY

R-1

NEW

AM

ERIC

A SC

HOO

LH

CH55

187

.337

.5AE

C: D

efau

lt Im

prov

emen

t38

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

36.7

AEC:

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

Year

2JE

FFER

SON

CO

UN

TY R

-1ST

EVEN

S EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

321

86.3

36.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1JE

FFER

SON

CO

UN

TY R

-1W

HEAT

RID

GE 5

-8EM

470

85.5

38Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

JEFF

ERSO

N C

OU

NTY

R-1

JEFF

ERSO

N H

IGH

SCHO

OL

H55

189

.843

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n47

.1Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n45

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1JO

HNST

OW

N-M

ILLI

KEN

RE-

5JM

ILLI

KEN

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

553

54.1

59.7

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n43

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2JU

LESB

URG

RE-

1IN

SIGH

T SC

HOO

L O

F CO

LORA

DO A

T JU

LESB

URG

MH

OL

885

40.1

37.2

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

34.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

36.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3KA

RVAL

RE-

23KA

RVAL

ON

LIN

E ED

UCA

TIO

NEM

HO

L93

7.5

41.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

33.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

33.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3LA

KE C

OU

NTY

R-1

WES

TPAR

K EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

310

75.8

60Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

42.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

33.1

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

2LA

KE C

OU

NTY

R-1

LAKE

CO

UN

TY M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LEM

330

77.6

42.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

33.5

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3LA

MAR

RE-

2PA

RKVI

EW E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E31

680

.160

.4Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

44.4

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2LA

S AN

IMAS

RE-

1LA

S AN

IMAS

JUN

IOR

HIGH

SCH

OO

LM

6481

.337

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

37Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n29

.8Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 3

LIBE

RTY

J-4LI

BERT

Y EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

3612

.140

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n32

.8Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n38

.9Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

LON

E ST

AR 1

01LO

NE

STAR

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

5251

.975

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n38

.9Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n36

.1Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 2

MAP

LETO

N 1

THE

NEW

AM

ERIC

A SC

HOO

LH

CH40

280

.9Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n29

.3AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

an29

.6AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

anYe

ar 2

MAP

LETO

N 1

WEL

BY M

ON

TESS

ORI

SCH

OO

LE

218

8329

.2Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n28

.2Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n39

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3M

APLE

TON

1CL

AYTO

N P

ARTN

ERSH

IP S

CHO

OL

EM49

178

.835

.7Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n40

.2Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n41

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

MAP

LETO

N 1

GLO

BAL

LEAD

ERSH

IP A

CADE

MY

EMH

530

91.5

44.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

44.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

44Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

MAP

LETO

N 1

ACHI

EVE

ACAD

EMY

EM45

884

.851

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2

MAP

LETO

N 1

MAP

LETO

N E

XPED

ITIO

NAR

Y SC

HOO

L O

F TH

E AR

TSM

H55

775

.852

.5Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n51

.2Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n45

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

MAP

LETO

N 1

NO

RTH

VALL

EY S

CHO

OL

FOR

YOU

NG

ADU

LTS

H73

64.4

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

25.1

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

AEC:

Tur

naro

und

Plan

Year

2M

ESA

COU

NTY

VAL

LEY

51GR

ANDE

RIV

ER V

IRTU

AL A

CADE

MY

EMH

OL

245

9.4

37.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1M

IAM

I/YO

DER

60 JT

MIA

MI-Y

ODE

R JU

NIO

R HI

GH S

CHO

OL

M81

71.6

74.4

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n52

.1Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

MO

FFAT

2M

OFF

AT E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E39

82.1

58.3

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

41.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

41.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2M

OFF

AT C

OU

NTY

RE:

NO

1M

AYBE

LL E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E9

55.6

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

nPe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

25.2

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

1

76

2012

CDE

Sch

ool P

lan

Type

Rec

omm

enda

tions

(Fin

al R

ecom

men

datio

ns 1

2/05

/12)

- w

ith 2

010

and

2011

SPF

resu

lts

Dist

rict N

ame

Scho

ol N

ame

EMH

Leve

ls

Serv

ed

Char

ter

e/on

line

# K-

12

stud

ent

s 201

2

K-12

%

FRL

2012

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2010

2010

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2011

2011

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2012

2012

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Ente

ring

Year

on

PI/T

A

MO

FFAT

CO

UN

TY R

E:N

O 1

SUN

SET

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E27

840

.747

.9Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n49

.5Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n45

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

MO

NTE

VIS

TA C

-8M

ON

TE V

ISTA

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M23

178

.455

.7Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n50

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1

MO

NTE

ZUM

A-CO

RTEZ

RE-

1SO

UTH

WES

T O

PEN

CHA

RTER

SCH

OO

LH

CH16

152

.825

.6AE

C: D

efau

lt Im

prov

emen

t25

.8AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

an25

.2AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

anYe

ar 2

MO

NTE

ZUM

A-CO

RTEZ

RE-

1KE

MPE

R EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

394

6432

.3Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n36

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

41.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3M

ON

TEZU

MA-

CORT

EZ R

E-1

MAN

AUGH

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

296

82.1

55.4

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

43.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

42.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2N

ORT

H CO

NEJ

OS

RE-1

JCE

NTA

URI

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M26

075

44.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

53.8

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

44.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1N

ORW

OO

D R-

2JN

ORW

OO

D EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

120

62.5

55.2

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

46.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2PR

ITCH

ETT

RE-3

PRIT

CHET

T M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

1060

31.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

47Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n38

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

PUEB

LO C

ITY

60FR

EED

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M29

176

.330

.2Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n26

.1Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n25

.5Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 3

PUEB

LO C

ITY

60LE

MU

EL P

ITTS

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M25

489

.429

.7Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n26

.6Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n26

.9Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 3

PUEB

LO C

ITY

60JA

MES

H R

ISLE

Y M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

355

96.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

25.1

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

28.1

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3PU

EBLO

CIT

Y 60

RON

CALL

I MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M55

976

.445

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

32.1

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

30.6

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3PU

EBLO

CIT

Y 60

IRVI

NG

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E26

991

.8Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n31

.2Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n32

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3PU

EBLO

CIT

Y 60

BEN

JAM

IN F

RAN

KLIN

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

425

88.5

43.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

38.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3PU

EBLO

CIT

Y 60

MIN

NEQ

UA

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E36

088

.157

.3Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n52

.7Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n41

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

PUEB

LO C

ITY

60BR

ADFO

RD E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E33

894

.140

.4Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n50

.4Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

PUEB

LO C

ITY

60CA

RLIL

E EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

307

78.5

68.8

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n65

.8Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

43.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1PU

EBLO

CIT

Y 60

HAAF

F EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

304

69.7

66Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

42.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2PU

EBLO

CIT

Y 60

BESS

EMER

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LEM

437

91.5

34.2

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

31.9

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

46.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3PU

EBLO

CO

UN

TY 7

0BE

ULA

H M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

6050

64.6

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n55

.8Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n42

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

PUEB

LO C

OU

NTY

70

LIBE

RTY

POIN

T IN

TERN

ATIO

NAL

SCH

OO

LM

521

54.1

43.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

51.1

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

44.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1PU

EBLO

CO

UN

TY 7

0PL

EASA

NT

VIEW

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M35

653

.754

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

50.5

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

ROCK

Y FO

RD R

-2JE

FFER

SON

INTE

RMED

IATE

SCH

OO

LE

279

85.7

31.9

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

31.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

31.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3SH

ERID

AN 2

SHER

IDAN

HIG

H SC

HOO

LH

370

77.3

55.3

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

47.8

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.5

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1SI

ERRA

GRA

NDE

R-3

0SI

ERRA

GRA

NDE

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M65

89.2

42.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

45.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

36.6

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3SO

UTH

CO

NEJ

OS

RE-1

0AN

TON

ITO

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M39

66.7

30.4

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

36Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n28

.9Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 3

SOU

TH C

ON

EJO

S RE

-10

GUAD

ALU

PE E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

EM90

82.2

42.4

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

57Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n45

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

SPRI

NGF

IELD

RE-

4SP

RIN

GFIE

LD JU

NIO

R HI

GH S

CHO

OL

M30

66.7

39.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

57.4

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

43.8

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1ST

VRA

IN V

ALLE

Y RE

1J

ST. V

RAIN

GLO

BAL

ON

LIN

E AC

ADEM

YH

OL

8128

.425

.1Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 1

ST V

RAIN

VAL

LEY

RE 1

JSP

ANGL

ER E

LEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E29

796

.331

.2Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n61

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n40

.3Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

ST V

RAIN

VAL

LEY

RE 1

JFR

EDER

ICK

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E49

564

.736

.3Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n36

.3Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n44

.8Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

ST V

RAIN

VAL

LEY

RE 1

JAD

ULT

EDU

CATI

ON

/LIN

COLN

CEN

TER

MH

122

13.1

25AE

C: D

efau

lt Im

prov

emen

t25

.1AE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

anAE

C: P

riorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pl

anYe

ar 2

THO

MPS

ON

R-2

JM

ON

ROE

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E33

365

.550

.5Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n47

.2Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

THO

MPS

ON

R-2

JTH

OM

PSO

N O

NLI

NE

EMH

OL

4827

.1Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n50

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1TR

INID

AD 1

FISH

ER'S

PEA

K EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

387

71.1

49Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

40.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2VI

LAS

RE-5

V.I.L

.A.S

. ON

LIN

E SC

HOO

LEM

HO

L16

551

.529

.1Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n30

.5Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n28

.3Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

nYe

ar 3

WEL

D CO

UN

TY R

E-1

GILC

REST

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

174

71.8

36.5

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

38.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

33.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

Year

3W

ELD

COU

NTY

S/D

RE-

8TW

OM

BLY

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E52

675

.963

.5Pe

rfor

man

ce P

lan

53.2

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

46.1

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1W

ESTM

INST

ER 5

0IV

ER C

. RAN

UM

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M81

289

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

26.3

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

38.2

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

2W

ESTM

INST

ER 5

0M

. SCO

TT C

ARPE

NTE

R M

IDDL

E SC

HOO

LM

566

90.1

36.7

Turn

arou

nd P

lan

37.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

38.6

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

3

77

2012

CDE

Sch

ool P

lan

Type

Rec

omm

enda

tions

(Fin

al R

ecom

men

datio

ns 1

2/05

/12)

- w

ith 2

010

and

2011

SPF

resu

lts

Dist

rict N

ame

Scho

ol N

ame

EMH

Leve

ls

Serv

ed

Char

ter

e/on

line

# K-

12

stud

ent

s 201

2

K-12

%

FRL

2012

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2010

2010

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2011

2011

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2012

2012

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Ente

ring

Year

on

PI/T

A

WES

TMIN

STER

50

CLAR

A E.

MET

Z EL

EMEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

381

86.4

50.5

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

51.1

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

39.7

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

1W

ESTM

INST

ER 5

0W

ESTM

INST

ER H

IGH

SCHO

OL

H23

9878

.339

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n36

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.2Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

WES

TMIN

STER

50

SHAW

HEI

GHTS

MID

DLE

SCHO

OL

M64

878

.445

.9Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n45

.3Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n43

.6Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 3

WES

TMIN

STER

50

JOSE

PHIN

E HO

DGKI

NS

ELEM

ENTA

RY S

CHO

OL

E56

487

.926

.3Tu

rnar

ound

Pla

n50

.1Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n44

.4Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

WID

EFIE

LD 3

TALB

OTT

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

345

72.2

Perf

orm

ance

Pla

n47

.5Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n45

.1Pr

iorit

y Im

prov

emen

t Pla

nYe

ar 1

WID

EFIE

LD 3

PIN

ELLO

ELE

MEN

TARY

SCH

OO

LE

329

6655

.7Im

prov

emen

t Pla

n44

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

46.9

Prio

rity

Impr

ovem

ent P

lan

Year

281

012

191

tota

lSt

ate

tota

l - 8

33,1

86

78

Appendix D – Districts Accredited with Priority Improvement and Turnaround Plans

2012

CDE

Dist

rict A

ccre

dita

tion

Ratin

gs

Dist

rict N

ame

2010

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2010

2011

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2011

2012

Fin

al A

ccre

dita

tion

Cate

gory

Fina

l %

Poin

ts

Earn

ed

2012

Cons

ecut

ive

TA o

r PI

Stat

us Y

rsK-

12 P

upil

Coun

t 201

2Si

zeSe

ttin

gCo

unty

Regi

on20

12 %

K-

12 F

RL%

K-1

2 M

in%

PK-

12

ELL

ADAM

S CO

UN

TY 1

4

Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

37.8

Accr

ed. w

ith T

urna

roun

d

38

.6Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

39.5

Year

37,

500

6,00

1-15

,000

Den

Met

Adam

sM

etro

83.2

87.4

43.7

AGU

ILAR

REO

RGAN

IZED

6

Acc

red.

with

Prio

rity

Impr

.44

.6Ac

cred

. with

Prio

rity

Impr

.49

.2Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

40.5

Year

397

Und

er 3

01Ru

ral

Las A

nim

asSo

uthe

ast

72.9

50.5

3.1

KARV

AL R

E-23

Ac

cred

. with

Prio

rity

Impr

.43

.5Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

38Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

40.2

Year

412

2U

nder

301

Rura

lLi

ncol

nN

orth

east

13.5

90

MO

UN

TAIN

BO

CES

Accr

ed. w

ith T

urna

roun

d

32

.8Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

32.8

Accr

ed. w

ith T

urna

roun

d

37

Year

414

3U

nder

301

BOCE

SN

orth

wes

t0

46.2

5.6

VILA

S RE

-5

Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

30.3

Accr

ed. w

ith T

urna

roun

d

32

.2Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

28.6

Year

4U

nder

301

Rura

lBa

caSo

uthe

ast

50.7

27.8

0

ADAM

S-AR

APAH

OE

28J

Accr

ed. w

ith Im

prov

emen

t

45.8

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

45.8

Accr

ed. w

/Prio

rity

Impr

.46

.1Ye

ar 2

39,8

35O

ver 2

5,00

0De

n M

etAr

apah

oeM

etro

68.2

80.8

39

BRAN

SON

REO

RGAN

IZED

82

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

51.3

Accr

ed. w

ith Im

prov

emen

t

52.7

Accr

ed. w

/Prio

rity

Impr

.51

.9Ye

ar 1

452

301-

600

Rura

lLa

s Ani

mas

Sout

heas

t17

.239

.80

CHAR

TER

SCHO

OL

INST

ITU

TE

Ac

cred

. with

Prio

rity

Impr

.60

.8Ac

cred

. with

Prio

rity

Impr

.57

.2Ac

cred

. w/P

riorit

y Im

pr.

53.5

Year

311

,756

6,00

0-25

,000

Urb

Sub

50.2

54.3

19.8

DEN

VER

COU

NTY

1

Ac

cred

. with

Prio

rity

Impr

.48

.3Ac

cred

. with

Prio

rity

Impr

.50

.2Ac

cred

. w/P

riorit

y Im

pr.

51.7

Year

383

,377

Ove

r 25,

000

Den

Met

Denv

erM

etro

72.6

79.4

36.9

ENG

LEW

OO

D 1

Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

42.9

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

46.8

Accr

ed. w

/Prio

rity

Impr

.43

.8Ye

ar 3

2,98

11,

201-

6,00

0De

n M

etAr

apah

oeM

etro

5641

.213

.9

GRE

ELEY

6

Ac

cred

. with

Impr

ovem

ent

54

.8Ac

cred

. with

Impr

ovem

ent

52

.5Ac

cred

. w/P

riorit

y Im

pr.

48.7

Year

119

,821

6,00

0-25

,000

Urb

Sub

Wel

dN

orth

Cen

tral

61.5

63.7

25.6

IGN

ACIO

11

JT

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

42.7

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

42.7

Accr

ed. w

/Prio

rity

Impr

.43

.3Ye

ar 3

718

601-

1,20

0Ru

ral

La P

lata

Sout

hwes

t59

.965

.94.

2

JULE

SBU

RG R

E-1

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

56Ac

cred

. with

Prio

rity

Impr

.58

.3Ac

cred

. w/P

riorit

y Im

pr.

52.5

Year

31,

154

601-

1,20

0O

ut T

wn

Sedg

wic

kN

orth

east

42.7

28.5

1.7

LAKE

CO

UN

TY R

-1

Ac

cred

. with

Prio

rity

Impr

.43

.9Ac

cred

. with

Impr

ovem

ent

52

.1Ac

cred

. w/P

riorit

y Im

pr.

49.3

Year

11,

167

601-

1,20

0O

ut T

wn

Lake

Nor

thw

est

73.4

71.1

35.1

MAN

ZAN

OLA

3J

Ac

cred

. with

Impr

ovem

ent

54

Accr

edite

d64

.6Ac

cred

. w/P

riorit

y Im

pr.

51.9

Year

113

1U

nder

301

Rura

lO

tero

Sout

heas

t76

.368

.723

.7

MAP

LETO

N 1

Accr

ed. w

ith Im

prov

emen

t

50.7

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

47.7

Accr

ed. w

/Prio

rity

Impr

.47

.4Ye

ar 2

8,05

16,

001-

25,0

00De

n M

etAd

ams

Met

ro72

.570

.733

.9

MO

NTE

VIS

TA C

-8

Ac

cred

. with

Impr

ovem

ent

54

.5Ac

cred

. with

Prio

rity

Impr

.49

.9Ac

cred

. w/P

riorit

y Im

pr.

45.7

Year

21,

139

601-

1,20

0O

ut T

wn

Rio

Gra

nde

Sout

hwes

t70

.974

.814

.2

MO

NTE

ZUM

A-CO

RTEZ

RE-

1

Ac

cred

. with

Prio

rity

Impr

.49

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

48.2

Accr

ed. w

/Prio

rity

Impr

.48

.3Ye

ar 3

2,75

31,

201-

6,00

0O

ut C

itM

onte

zum

aSo

uthw

est

58.1

49.3

7.2

PRIT

CHET

T RE

-3

Accr

edite

d65

.9Ac

cred

. with

Impr

ovem

ent

55

.9Ac

cred

. w/P

riorit

y Im

pr.

49.3

Year

147

Und

er 3

01Ru

ral

Baca

Sout

heas

t53

.714

.90

PUEB

LO C

ITY

60

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

44.2

Accr

ed. w

ith T

urna

roun

d

40

.4Ac

cred

. w/P

riorit

y Im

pr.

46.2

Year

317

,692

6,00

1-25

,000

Urb

Sub

Pueb

loPi

kes P

eak

70.4

72.9

6.5

ROCK

Y FO

RD R

-2

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

43.7

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

43.5

Accr

ed. w

/Prio

rity

Impr

.44

.1Ye

ar 3

825

601-

1,20

0O

ut T

wn

Ote

roSo

uthe

ast

79.3

74.4

9.1

SHER

IDAN

2

Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

44.8

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

43.7

Accr

ed. w

/Prio

rity

Impr

.45

.7Ye

ar 3

1,58

41,

201-

6,00

0De

n M

etAr

apah

oeM

etro

84.4

83.6

38.4

WEL

D CO

UN

TY S

/D R

E-8

A

ccre

d. w

ith Im

prov

emen

t

52.9

Accr

ed. w

ith P

riorit

y Im

pr.

48.3

Accr

ed. w

/Prio

rity

Impr

.48

.3Ye

ar 2

2,41

11,

201-

6,00

0O

ut T

wn

Wel

dN

orth

Cen

tral

73.2

73.8

33.2

WES

TMIN

STER

50

Accr

ed. w

ith T

urna

roun

d

41

.2Ac

cred

. with

Tur

naro

und

40.2

Accr

ed. w

/Prio

rity

Impr

.46

.4Ye

ar 3

10,0

696,

001-

25,0

00De

n M

etAd

ams

Met

ro82

.481

.742

213,

825

60.1

333

79

Appendix E – Potential Policy Changes

Dependingonthemainstrategiesselected,therearemanyoptionsforamendingexistingpolicies.Thischartcontainssomeideas,notnecessarilymutuallyexclusive.

Area Policy Change options/Considerations

Designationofstaterecoverydistricttomanagelow-performingschools

Legislationtocreatestaterecoverydistrict Uselanguagefromsimilarpolicies in other states

Decisionsaboutinterventions ProvidethatCommissioner,notState Board,willselectinterventions

StateBoard’srolecouldbetoensure processwasfollowedandtodirectaction

DesignationofentityatCDEsuch asCommissioner’sNetwork

Legislationmaynotbeneeded,but couldincludegrantofautonomyispart ofplacementinnetwork,conditionsfor return to district

Setupascompetitivegrantto solicitvolunteers

Usetoserveisolatedruralschools and/ortoimplementinitiativessuch asblendedlearning

CDEcouldcontractwiththird-party operatorstoimplement

Createcategoriesofschools eligibleforrestructuring dependingondistrictinvolvement

Providethatschoolsmaybepart ofdistrict-ledturnaroundsor independent turnaround

Thismaynotrequirelegislation,but couldincludegrantofautonomyfor independent turnarounds

Indianaprovidesforschoolstobe indistrict-ledturnaroundsoras TurnaroundAcademies,whichcontract directlywithoperators

Designationofother organizationsasSROs Legislationmaynotbeneeded

Coulddesignatethirdpartiesto overseeturnaroundsthatfallin aparticularcategory

Selectingandcontractingfor managementbyapublicor privateentity

Clarifywhoselectsandcontracts withthethirdparty

HomedistrictorColoradoDepartment of Education

Couldclarifythatlocalboardmayselect ifdistrictitselfisnoteligibleforloss ofaccreditation;otherwiseCDEselects

Couldrequirethatdistrictselectsfrom listpre-approvedbystate

Transitionbackfrommanagement byapublicorprivateentity

Clarifycircumstancesunderwhich managementisreturnedtothedistrict

Maybefordefinedtimeperiod(for example,fiveyears)oruntilperformanceimprovestoaspecifiedlevel

80

Area Policy Change options/Considerations

Rangeofinterventions for schools

Providethatmorethanoneinterventioncan be selected for a turnaround school

Forexample,aschoolcouldbecome anInnovationSchoolmanagedbya third party

Conditionsformanagementby apublicorprivateentity

Clarifyautonomyavailableforthirdpartymanagerandprocessforreceivingit

RequireschoolboardtodesignateschoolasInnovationSchoolandnegotiateterms

Providethatthirdpartymanagermaydecidewhethertohireexistingstaff, whoreturntodistrictifnothired

Providethatthirdpartymanagers arenotboundbyexistingcontracts or district rules

DesignationasanInnovationSchool

Providethatnewschoolstartsas InnovationSchoolsdonotrequire staffvote

Providethatschoolsconverted toInnovationSchoolsaspart ofturnarounddonotrequire staffvotes

DistinguishbetweenregularInnovation SchoolsandturnaroundInnovation Schools,astheCharterSchoolActs distinguishesamongtypesofcharters

Includeprocessesforretainingornot retainingcurrentstaff

Conversiontocharterschool

Providethatdistrictsloseexclusive charteringauthorityundercertain turnaround situations

Clarifythatnewcharterschools resultingfromturnaroundmaybe district-authorized,CharterSchool Instituteauthorized,orindependent, dependingoncircumstances

CharterSchoolInstitutecouldhouse allturnaroundcharterschools,including schoolsconvertedtochartersaspart ofrestructuring

Pre-identificationofcharter networksusefulforschoolsinsimilar geographicareas

Doeschartertransitionbacktodistrict?

ClosureClarify that school closure can include directingtheschooltorestartunder a different operator

Somecharteroperatorswillnotlead conversions,onlyrestarts

Lossofdistrictaccreditation Provideforconsequencesfordistricts thathavelostaccreditation

Reduction in state share of school financeformulafundingtocovercosts of turnaround school operators

Lossofdistricteligibilitytoapplyfor stategrants

Lossofdistrictabilitytoissuediplomas

81

Appendix F – District Root Cause Analysis

Summary of District Root Cause Findings.

•Overalldistricts’mostoftenidentifiedaninterrelated“lack”ofcurriculum,instruction,anddataproficiencyasa rootcauseforeachofthefourkeyperformanceindicatorsidentifiedinSB09-163asthemeasuresofeducational success:academicachievement,academiclongitudinalgrowth,academicgaps,andpostsecondaryandworkforce readiness.ThiswasalsotruefordistrictsdesignatedasaGraduationDistrictanddistrictsidentifiedforimprovement underTitleIII(AnnualMeasurableAchievementObjectives(AMAOs)forEnglishLanguageLearners)

•Inaddition,Graduationdistrictsalsoidentifiedalackoforinconsistencyininterventionstrategiesandcredit recoveryoptions

•AMAOdistrictsalsoidentifiedinsufficientunderstandingandlackofinstructionstrategiesbycoresubject teachersofhowstudents’progressthroughtheColoradoEnglishLanguageAssessment(CELA)andtransition toEnglishinstructionbeforemasteringtheirnativelanguage

•Districtsarebothencouragedandchallengedbyrebuildingandrestructuringentiredistrict

•WhenadistrictisidentifiedasaTurnarounddistrict,theentirecommunityisimpactedandgoesthrough aperiodofacceptanceandadjustment

•Therearemultiplestakeholdersthatneedtobeon-boardwiththeturnaroundstrategyforsuccesstooccur

•Ruralareashavegreaterleadershipchallengesthanlargerdistricts

82

Description of Analyses

Sample

ThirtydistrictUIPswereselectedforanalysis.Selecteddistrictsmetatleastoneofthefollowingcriteria:(1) TurnaroundAccreditation;(2)PriorityImprovementAccreditation;or(3)havingoneormoreyear-twoturnaround schoolswithinthedistrictin2010-2011.Criteriaensuredthatthelowestperformingdistrictswereincludedinthe analysisaswellashigherperformingdistrictswithoneormore“orphan”schoolsorlow-performingschoolswithin anotherwisehigherperformancedistrict.

Table 1 Sample Districts by District Setting and Size (N=30)

District CDE Region Setting (2010) Size (2011 count)

Adams14 6 Denvermetro 6,001-24,999

Adams-Arapahoe(Aurora) 6 Denvermetro >25,000

Brighton27J 6 Denvermetro 6,001-24,999

Denver 6 Denvermetro >25,000

Englewood 6 Denvermetro 1,201-6,000

Mapleton 6 Denvermetro 1,201-6,000

Sheridan 6 Denvermetro 1,201-6,000

St.Vrain 2 Denvermetro >25,000

Westminster 6 Denvermetro 6,001-24,999

CharterSchoolInstitute n/a n/a 6,001-24,999

MountainBOCES n/a n/a

Canon City 11 Outlyingcity 1,201-6,000

MontezumaCortez 9 Outlyingcity 1,201-6,000

Center 10 Outlyingcity 601-1,200

Huerfano 11 Outlyingcity 601-1,200

Julesburg 3 Outlyingcity 1,201-6,000

Liberty 8 Outlyingcity <300

MonteVista 10 Outlyingcity 601-1,200

Rocky Ford 12 Outlyingcity 601-1,200

WeldRE1 Outlyingcity 1,201-6,000

WeldRE8 2 Outlyingcity 1,201-6,000

Aguilar 11 Rural <300

Arriba-Flagler 8 Rural <300

Ignacio 9 Rural 601-1,200

Karval 8 Rural <300

Park County Rural 601-1,200

Vilas 12 Rural 301-600

COSpringsD-11 7 Urbansuburban >25,000

Greeley 2 Urbansuburban 6,001-24,999

Pueblo60 11 Urbansuburban 6,001-24,999

83

Analytic Procedure and Findings

Phase I – Identifying Root Cause Themes:

UsingNVivoqualitativesoftware,sampledistrictUIProotcausenarratives(SectionIII:NarrativeonDataAnalysisandRootCauseIdentification)werereviewedandcodedintocategoriesorthemesasspecifiedintheAugust16,2012, Summary of Questions from School Turnaround Study Group for UCD, Question II.

Rootcausethemecategorieswerethennarrowedbyexaminingthenumberofreferenceswithineachthemecategory. Districtstendedtoidentifythesamerootcauseforeachofthefourkeyperformanceindicators:1)AcademicAchievement;2)AcademicGrowth;3)AcademicGrowthGaps;and4)Post-secondary/WorkforceReadiness.Figure1showsthepercent ofsampledistrictsidentifyingsimilarrootcausesforlowperformancebykeyperformanceindicator.

Figure 1

Summary of Results

•Morethanhalfofsampledistricts’identifiedaninterrelated“lack”ofcurriculum,instruction,anddata proficiencyasarootcauseforeachofthefourkeyperformanceindicatorsidentifiedinSB09-163

•MorethanhalfofdistrictsdesignatedasaGraduation Districtand/oridentifiedforimprovementunder Title III(AnnualMeasurableAchievementObjectivesAMAOsforEnglishLanguageLearners)alsoidentified lackofcurriculum,instruction,anddataproficiencyasrootcausesforlowperformance

•DistrictsdesignatedasaGraduationDistrictalsoidentifiedalackoforinconsistencyininterventionstrategies andcreditrecoveryoptions

84

•DistrictsidentifiedunderTitleIIIalsoidentifiedinsufficientunderstandingandlackofinstructionstrategies bycoresubjectteachersofhowstudents’progressthroughtheColoradoEnglishLanguageAssessment (CELA),andhowstudentstransitiontoEnglish-onlyinstructionbeforemasteringtheirnativelanguageas rootcausesforlowperformance

•Districtsarebothencouragedandchallengedbyrebuildingandrestructuringentiredistrict

Phase II – Identifying patterns or relationships of districts by district setting:

Asecondanalysiswasconductedtoidentifypatternsorrelationshipsamongorbetweendistricts.NVivogeneratedwordfrequencytablesandwordclouds,Figure2,ofthemostfrequentlyusedwordsfromdistrictUIProotcausenarratives.FontsizeandboldnessindicatesmostfrequentlyusedwordsfoundindistrictUIProotcausenarratives.

Figure 2 Visual representation of most frequently used words in sample district IUP root cause narratives

absence academic access accountability achievement across address aligned allow among appropriate areas assessment

assessments based best classroom clearly Colorado consistent

consistently content csap curriculum data defined

development differentiated district effective effectively

elementary every expectations fidelity first focused formative gaps grade guaranteed high impact implement implementation implemented

inconsistent instruction instructional

interventions lack leadership learning level levels

math measures model monitor monitoring must need needs

performance place plan practices professional program programs

progress quality reading results school schools specific staff

standards state strategies student students support systematic systemic teachers tier time training understanding

use used wide writing

85

Table2showsthetoptenmostfrequentwordsusedbydistrictsetting.Dataareshownindescendingorder.Forexample, “lack”wasthemostfrequentlyusedwordfordistrictssetintheDenver-metroarea,outlyingtown,anddistrictswithout adesignatedsetting(CharterSchoolInstituteandMountainBOCES).Incontrast,themostfrequentlyusedwordinurban- suburbandistrictnarrativeswas“instruction”andforoutlyingcitydistricts,themostfrequentlyusedwordwas“systematic.”

ThefinalstageofPhaseIImorecloselyexaminedthecontext,theparagraphsand/orsentences,inwhichtheword “lack”wasusedindistrictrootcausenarrativedescriptions.Again,districtswerecategorizedbydistrictsetting.AsTable 3shows,theemphasisonwhatislackingdiffersslightlybydistrictsetting.Forexample,Denver-metrodistrictsmost oftenidentifieda“lackofcurricularframework,”“lackofsystemsforeffectiveimplementationofbestinstructional practices,”“lackofconsistentinterventions,”andlackofcommonunderstandingandguidelines.”Ruralsettingdistricts frequentlymentionedalackofcurriculumbut,unlikeDenver-metrodistricts,ruraldistrictsalsoemphasized“alackof research-basedinstruction,”anda“lackofconsistentleadershipandfrequentstaffturnover.”

Table 2 Top 10 most frequent words used by district setting

Denver Metro Urban-Suburban outlying CITY outlying ToWN Rural No Setting

LackInstructionProgressConsistentReadingExpectationsAssessmentsMonitoringAlignedImplementation

InstructionEffectiveCurriculumQualityStrategiesWritingAlignedAssessmentConsistentLack

SystemicImplementationLackLearningAcademicStandardsCongruentCurriculumCycleDevelopment

LackCurriculumInstructionStandardsInstructionalDataNeedProgressWritingAligned

CurriculumAbsenceDevelopmentInstructionalPracticesProfessionalOnlineSystematicEnrollmentLack

LackRequiredStandardsAcademicAccessCurriculumDefinedEnsureGuaranteedMisalignment

Table 3 Words used in association with the word “lack” by district setting.

Denver Metro Urban-Suburban outlying CITY outlying ToWN Rural No Setting

Curricular framework

Systemsforeffective implementationof best instructional Practices

Consistent interventions

Common understandingandguidelines

Effective monitoring/accountability system

Instructionalstrategies

Systematicapproach to assessment

Useofdatatomakeinformeddecisions at classroomlevel

Systemic implantation ofcurriculum

Professional developmentforresearch-basedteaching strategies

Direct instruction forELLs

Continuity and alignmentofCurriculum

Research-basedinstruction

Systemicap-proaches tofollow-up/evaluationsect.

Standards-basedCurriculum

Research-basedinstruction

Consistent leadership/ turnover

Sharedvisionbyall stakeholders

Guaranteed viablecurriculum

Real-time monitoringtoidentify need for additional attention or resource

86

Summary of Results

Themostfrequentlyusedwordindistrictrootcausenarrativeswas“lack.”Overall,thelackofcurriculum,instruction,anddataproficiencywerethemostoftencitedrootcausesforlackofprogressregardlessofdistrictsetting.Beyondthesecommonthemes,emphasisofrootcausesdifferedslightlybydistrictsettingwithalackofcommonunderstandingandguidelinesforDenver-metrodistrictstoalackofleadershipinruraldistricts.

Phase III – Verifying Root Causes

Thisfinalphaseofanalysisintendedtodiscovertowhatdegreereportedrootcauseswereinfact,rootcausesoflow performance.Forpurposesofthisdeeperanalysis,sixdistrictswereselectedforverification:Adams14,Sheridan, Ignacio,Karval,Pueblo,andAguilar.Duetotimeconstraints,onlyIgnacio,Karval,Aguilar,andPueblowereverified.

•AlldistrictshavehadaComprehensiveAppraisalofDistrictImprovement(CADI)andCADIresultsbecome partoftheUIP

TheNoChildLeftBehindActrequiresthatstatesallocateresourcesforintensiveandsustainedsupporttoschools anddistrictsdesignatedasinneedofimprovement.Throughimprovementgrants,eligibledistrictsorschools receivefundstosupportafocusedapproachtoimprovementinthefollowingareas:FacilitatedDataAnalysisand ActionPlanning,BestFirstInstruction;Leadership;and/orPositiveClimateandCulture.Districtsorschoolsidentified forTitleIProgramImprovementorCorrectiveActionareeligibleforthegrantwithprioritygiventodistrictsand schoolswiththelowestperformanceandthosethathavehadanSSTorCADIreviewwithinthelastfouryears.All districtsinthissub-sampleareidentifiedforTitleICorrective Action and all had a CADI review(acomprehensive needsassessment)conductedbyathird-partyserviceprovider,between2006and2010

•Contentanalysisoflocalnewspapers,districtschoolnewsletters,schoolboardminutes,andotherpublically availableon-lineresourceswereconsistentwithUIPnarratives.Thesesourcesalsoprovidedinformationon communityandleadershipconcernsnotpresentedintheUIPs

•InterviewsandfeedbackfromCDEPerformanceManagers,UIPtrainers,andUIPtraineesconfirmedthat districtswerestrugglingwithcurriculum,instruction,anddataproficiency

87

Appendix g – Developing Procedures for Turnarounds

We recommend that CDE consider developing operating procedures in the following areas:

•Outreacheffortstodistrictsandschoolsastopriorityimprovementandturnaroundstatusandinitialconnection to resources and partners

•Identificationofthosedistrictsthatareplanningtoimplementtheirownturnaroundinitiativesforschools in the district

•Identificationofcriteriafordistrictentryintostateturnaroundsystem

0Mandatoryturnaroundimplementation(districtsubjecttoclosureorrestructuringunderS.B.163):districtsthathavebeenonpriorityimprovementorturnaroundstatusformorethanfiveyears,anddistrictsthathavefailedtomakesubstantialprogressonturnaroundplans

0Turnaroundassistance(districtsonturnaroundplans,otherdistrictsdesignatedashigh-prioritythatdonot fallintothefirstcategory)

•Identificationofcriteriaforschoolentryintostateturnaroundsystem

0Mandatoryturnaroundimplementation(schoolsubjecttoclosureorrestructuringunderS.B.163):schools thathavebeenonpriorityimprovementorturnaroundstatusformorethanfiveyears;schoolsthathave failedtomakesubstantialprogressonturnaroundplans

0Turnaroundassistance(schoolsonturnaroundplansthatareindistrictsthatarenotleadingtheirown turnaroundinitiatives)

•Developmentofstandardoperatingproceduresfordiagnosingdistrictcontext,rootcauses,andcapacity, designedtoanswerthefollowingquestionsinthefollowingareas(asimilaranalysiswouldapplytoschools):

•Urgency

0Academicperformanceurgency

♦ Isthedistrictonaturnaroundplanduetopooracademicperformance?

♦ IsthedistrictonYear3,4,or5ofpriorityimprovementorturnaroundstatusduetopoor academicperformance?

♦ Isthedistrict’sacademicperformancetrendingdownwardorstayinginanunacceptableplace?

♦ Howmanystudentsareaffectedbythedistrict’spoorperformance?

0Financialcomplianceurgency

♦ Isthedistrictonaturnaroundplanduetocomplianceissues?

♦ IsthedistrictonYear3,4,or5ofpriorityimprovementorturnaroundstatusduetocomplianceissues?

♦ Isinterventionnecessarytoprotecttheinterestsofstudentsandparents?

88

•Rootcauses(ifacademicperformanceisunacceptable)

0Identification

♦ Whatdoestheavailableevidencepointtointermsoftherootcausesofpoorperformance?

✣ DistrictUIPdocuments

✣ Otherinformationaboutdistrict–districtreviewsbyCDE(CADI,etc.),schoolvisitsbyCDE, CDEdataanalysis,interviewswithdistrictandschoolpersonnel,teacherandprincipalsurveys, schoolboardminutes,etc.

✣ PriorCDEstaffconclusions

✣ PriorStateReviewPanelconclusions

•Districtcharacteristics

0Whatisthesizeofthedistrict?

0Howmanyunderperformingschoolsdoesthedistricthave?

0Isthedistrictgeographicallyisolated?

0Isthereateachers’associationorcollectivebargainingagreementinplace?

0Doesthedistricthavesignificantnumbersofstudentsinpoverty?

0DoesthedistricthavesignificantnumbersofstudentslearningEnglish?

•Districtinternalcapacityforchange

0Docurrentleadersdemonstratetheabilitytousedatatoaccuratelydiagnoserootcausesandselect andimplementappropriateinterventions?

0Isthedistrictcapableofprovidingturnaroundleadershipandnecessaryresourcestoschoolsonitsown?

♦ Doesthedistricthavecurriculaandinstructionalmaterialsalignedwithstatestandards?

♦ Doesthedistricthaveaninternalstructureandstaffforturnaround?

♦ Canthedistrictidentifyandprovidequalifiedturnaroundleaders?

♦ Canthedistrictsupportschoolsindataanalysisandactionplans?

♦ Canthedistrictprovideneededtrainingforprincipalsandteachers?

0Docurrentleadersunderstandtheneedforsubstantialchange?Aretheywillingtopubliclysupport dramaticchange?

0Aretheschoolboard,administration,andteachers’association(ifapplicable)capableofworking cooperativelyintheinterestsofstudents?

89

0Isthedistrictwillingtoworkwithaturnaroundpartner?

0Isthedistrictwillingtograntinnovationstatustounderperformingschools?Isthedistrictwillingto createaninnovationzoneforunderperformingschools?

•DevelopmentofacasereporttemplatethatallowsPerformanceManagerstosummarizetheevidence concerningadistrictorschool,withaformatthatisconciseandeasilyunderstoodbyothersinvolved in the turnaround process

•DevelopmentofDSPcriteriatobeconsideredinrecommendingaparticularturnaroundintervention

•Developmentofsimilarproceduresandcriteriaforturnaroundschools

•Assisthigher-performingdistrictsindevelopingcapacitytoaddresstheirownpriorityimprovementand turnaroundschoolsbyprovidingtrainingsandtoolkitsdesignedtosupportdistrictsthatwanttosetup theirownturnaroundofficeordevelopadistrictturnaroundstrategy

90

Appendix h – Sample Decision Criteria for Selecting among School Turnaround Interventions

ThisappendixprovidessampledecisioncriteriathatcouldbeusedinmakingrecommendationstotheStateBoardofEducationaboutaschoolslatedforclosureorothermandatoryinterventions.Nooneindicatorwillbedecisiveinanygivensituation;rather,theseindicatorsshouldbeconsideredintheirtotality.

School Action Indicators Supporting This Action Indicators Against This Action

Schoolperformanceispersistently poorortrendingdowndespitemultiplereformefforts

Schoolperformanceistrendingupward

Relativefewstudentsareservedby the school

Alargenumberofstudentsareserved by the school

Studentshaveconvenientoptionsto attendotherhigher-performingschools

Studentsdonothaveconvenient options to attend other schools

Closing the school Nothirdpartyoperatorsareavailable orwillingtotakeovermanagement

Athirdpartyoperatorisavailableand willingtotakeovermanagement

Noleadershipteamwithturnaround capacityisavailable

Aleadershipteamwithturnaround capacityisavailable

Sufficientfundsarenotavailableto performeffectiveturnaround Sufficientfundsareavailable

Thecommunitysupportsclosure Thecommunitydoesnot support closure

Athirdpartyoperatorisavailableand willingtotakeovermanagement

Nothirdpartyoperatorsareavailable orwillingtotakeovermanagement

Thethirdpartymanager’sapproach islikelytobebeneficialtotheschool’s student population

Thethirdpartymanager’sapproach is not likely to be beneficial to the school’sstudentpopulation

External management of school

Thethirdpartymanagerhas demonstratedsuccesswith turnarounds/thisstudentpopulation

Thethirdpartymanagerdoesnot havedemonstratedsuccesswith turnarounds/thisstudentpopulation

Thedistrictiswillingtoguarantee autonomyneededforturnaround successtothethirdpartymanager

Thedistrictisnotwillingtoguaranteeautonomytothethirdpartymanager

Sufficientfundsareavailabletocoverthe costs of third party operation Sufficientfundsarenotavailable

Thereisafeasiblewaytosuccessfullytransitionmanagementoftheschoolback to the district

Transferbacktothedistrictwill beproblematic

91

School Action Indicators Supporting This Action Indicators Against This Action

Districtisunwillingtoguarantee autonomyneededforturnaround success

Districtiswillingtoguarantee autonomyneededforturnaround success

ThedistrictortheCharterSchool Instituteiswillingtoserveas authorizer

ThedistrictortheCharterSchool Instituteisnotwillingtoserveas authorizer

Acharteroperatorisavailableand willingtooperatetheschool

There is no charter operator able orwillingtooperatetheschool

Thecharteroperator’sapproachis likelytobebeneficialtotheschool’s student population

Thecharteroperator’sapproachis not likely to be beneficial to the school’sstudentpopulation

Conversion to charter school

Thecharteroperatorhasdemonstratedsuccesswithturnarounds/thisstudentpopulation

The charter operator does not havedemonstratedsuccesswith turnarounds/thisstudentpopulation

Thedistrictsupportsconversion to a charter school

The district does not support conversiontoacharterschool

Thecommunitysupportsconversion to a charter school

Thecommunitydoesnotsupport conversiontoacharterschool

Sufficientfundsareavailablefor charterstart-upcosts

Sufficientcharterstart-upfundsare notavailable

Closingtheschoolwouldbepotentiallyharmfultostudents

Closingtheschoolwouldnotbe harmfultostudents

Thecharteroperatorcanprovideentryintoanetworkofsimilarlysituatedandoperated schools

Thedistrictiswillingtoguarantee autonomyneededforturnaround success to the school

Thedistrictisnotwillingtoguaranteeautonomyneededforturnaroundsuccess

Conversion to Innovation School Anewleadershipteamwithturnaroundcapacityisavailabletoleadtheschool

Anewleadershipteamwith turnaroundcapacityisnotavailable to lead the school

InnovationSchoolsandInnovationZonesareviewedaspartofthe district’sstrategyforturnaround

Thedistrictdoesnotwanttooris notabletouseInnovationSchools asaturnaroundstrategy

92

School Action Indicators Supporting This Action Indicators Against This Action

Thedistrictand/ornewleadershipteamhasaplantouseInnovationSchool autonomytoachieveturnaroundsuccess

NooneseemstoknowhowInnovationSchoolautonomywillbeusedtoachieveturnaround success

Sufficientfundsareavailableto implementthisstrategy Sufficientfundsarenotavailable

Conversion to charter school Closingtheschoolwouldbepotentiallyharmfultostudents

Closingtheschoolwouldnotbe harmfultostudents

Thecommunitysupportsdesignation asanInnovationSchool

Thecommunitydoesnotsupport designationasanInnovationSchool

DesignationasanInnovationSchoolcanprovideentryintoanetworkofsimilarlysituated schools

Anewcharteroperatorisavailable andwillingtooperatetheschool

Thereisnonewcharteroperatorableorwillingtooperatetheschool

Thenewcharteroperator’sapproachislikelytobebeneficialtotheschool’sstudent population

Thenewcharteroperator’sapproach is not likely to be beneficial to the school’sstudentpopulation

Thenewcharteroperatorhas demonstratedsuccesswith turnarounds/thisstudentpopulation

Thenewcharteroperatordoes nothavedemonstratedsuccesswithturnarounds/thisstudentpopulation

Replacement of charter school board/new charter governance Thedistrictsupportsreplacementof

thecharterschoolboard/operator

The district does not support replacementofthecharterschool board/operator

Thecommunitysupportsthenew charter school operator

Thecommunitydoesnotsupport thenewcharterschooloperator

Sufficientfundsareavailabletocovertransition costs

Sufficienttransitionfundsare notavailable

Closingtheschoolwouldbepotentiallyharmfultostudents

Closingtheschoolwouldnotbeharmfulto students

93

Appendix I – Potential Partners and Providers

Noneoftheorganizationslistedinthisappendixhaveagreedtoparticipateinthecapacitieslisted.Thisappendix isprovidedforillustrativepurposesonly.

Turnaround Intervention Need Potential Providers

Leaddistrict/schoolturnaround partners(someofthesepartners operatecharterschoolsonly)

STRIVESchoolsNetworkDSSTSchoolsNetworkWestEdBigPictureLearningBlueprintExploreSchoolsGenerationsSchoolsNetworkTalentDevelopmentDiplomasNowInstituteforStudentAchievementAcademyforUrbanSchoolLeadershipGreenDotMasterySchoolsFirstLineSchoolsTeachforAmericaTheNewTeacherProjectHarvardEdLabs

StateRecoveryOrganizations

CharterSchoolInstituteColoradoLeagueofCharterSchoolsColoradoLegacyFoundationCommissioner’sNetwork(new)Governor’sNetwork(new)

Schoolturnaroundleadershippipelines

GetSmartSchoolsUniversityofVirginiaTurnaroundSpecialistProgramCASELeadershipAcademyCEATeachforAmericaTheNewTeacherProjectNewLeadersforNewSchoolsDistrict pipelines

94

Appendix J – Types of Technical Assistance Needed by Schools and Districts

Webelievethatdistrictsandschoolswouldbenefitfromtechnicalassistanceinthefollowingareas,bothforpurposes ofunderstandingtheturnaroundprocessandinresponsetothedistrictrootcauseanalysis.

Changemanagementfacilitation

Targetedresearchandprogramevaluation

Facilitated data analysis

Improvinginstructionalpracticesandstrategies

SettingupResponsetoIntervention/extendedlearningstructuresinschools

Usingblendedoronlinelearningstrategiestopersonalizelearning/gainaccesstosubjects

Consultingondistrict/schoolgovernancestructuresandoperations

Improvingprincipalinstructionalleadership

Developingandusingformativeassessments

Implementingahigh-performingculture

Implementingahigh-qualitypreschoolprogram

SettingupsystemsforEnglishlanguagelearners

Conductingschoolboardtrainingsfordistrictsinturnaroundorpriorityimprovement

95

Turnarounds in Colorado: Partnering for Innovative Reform in a Local Control StatewasproducedandprintedwiththesupportofGetSmartSchools,theColoradoDepartmentofEducation, theColoradoLegacyFoundationandtheNationalAllianceofCharterSchoolAuthorizers.

Thefollowingorganizationsassistedwiththedevelopmentofthisreport.A+DenverAnschutzFoundationCharterSchoolInstituteColoradoChildren’sCampaignColoradoLeagueofCharterSchoolsColoradoSucceedsDaniels FundDemocratsforEducationReformColoradoDonnell-KayFoundationStandforChildrenColoradoTeachforAmericaColorado