Pam Benigno, Education Policy Center DirectorBen DeGrow, Senior Education Policy Analyst

Education Policy Center http://Education.i2i.org http://www.SchoolChoiceforKids.org http://www.EdIsWatching.org http://www.IndependentTeachers.org

Digital Learning Douglas County Blueprint for Choice Innovation Schools Act SB 191 / Changing Educator Pay School District Financial Transparency Collective Bargaining Reform

Local school boards have control over instruction

No state control over textbooks No state-mandated collective bargaining No state-mandated teacher union

membership Intra- and Inter-district open enrollment Strong charter school law Strong education reform community

Open Enrollment Intra-district

and Inter-district

Neighborhood schools Magnet / Option / Focus schools Charter schools Programs within schools Contract schools Home school programs Online schools

22 full-time, multi-district programs

23 single-district programs

Model 1: Face–to-Face Driver Model 2: Rotation Model 3: Flex Model 4: Online Lab Model 5: Self blended Model 6: Online Driver

The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning Innosight Institute January 2011

Student Eligibility Student Access Personalized Learning Advancement Content Instruction Providers Assessment and Accountability Funding Delivery

Digital Learning Now!Foundation for Excellence in Education December 1, 2010

President and VP spearheaded effort Open to community: June 2010 Task force gave recommendations at board

retreat: November 2010 Supportive superintendent Unanimous board support: March 2011

Charter schools Home education partnerships Contract schools “Choice Scholarships” Neighborhood school empowerment Online learning Open enrollment policy reform

Changed “tone” of open enrollment policy to be more supportive of choice

Added a second-round application period Added a new student choice option Added an appeals process Treat family members as a unit in selection

process Increased the number of days for first round

period

School or group of schools may implement innovations

Innovations may include but not limited to: ◦ Educational services◦ Budgeting◦ Personnel administration ◦ Personnel decision making

District may request waivers from allowable statutes and regulations

Requires collective bargaining agreements to allow for waivers of terms with 60% support

Denver: 18 Innovation Schools Colo. Springs 11: 1 Innovation School Kit Carson : 2 Innovation Schools

Innovation school district in process Developed four zones of innovation led by

high school principals (three feeder areas and “innovation zone” of virtual, charters, etc.)◦ Innovation plans to be submitted this fall

Projected savings of $11.8M over 5 years◦ Reduced administration◦ Contracted transportation services

“Backpack funding”: money follows student to school / program of choice

SB 191: Educator Effectiveness

Define teacher and principal “effectiveness”◦ 50% of evaluations tied

to student growth Weaken legal promise

of tenure◦ Gaining & keeping

tenure based on effectiveness

Principal consent in direct placement; seniority less factor

Going Forward… State Implementation

◦ State Board rulemaking (November)◦ Legislature reviews and approves rules (February)◦ Pilot period: districts selected (2012-13)

Local opportunities◦ Replace seniority with performance [“Bargaining Reform”]◦ Performance evaluations = performance pay

Teacher Compensation Reform The single-salary schedule

is unsustainable and unproductive◦ Teacher skills don’t

typically improve beyond first 3 to 5 years of experience

◦ ZERO correlation between masters degrees and effective learning results

◦ Nearly 2% of Colo. K-12 operating budgets spent on “masters bumps”

Colo. Compensation Reforms Merit pay (“First” generation)

◦ Forced ranking systems, bonus pay-outs◦ Charter variations: Cherry Creek Academy;

Liberty Common; Platte River Academy Strategic compensation: an evolution

◦ Eagle County & The Classical Academy◦ Merit pay discarded: subjective, opaque

Denver ProComp (Results-based pay)◦ Some positive results, esp. from newer teachers◦ Salary schedule kept, some rewards misaligned

Pay Innovation to Watch Harrison 2 Effectiveness and Results

◦ Performance Pay, NOT Incentive Pay◦ Comprehensive: principal training; evaluation

tools; data systems; smart professional development

Douglas Co. Pay for Performance Next generation?: Work in progress

◦ Market-based salaries◦ Objective standards, no quotas◦ Triangulation of data (tests, evaluation, targets)◦ High earnings for highest performers◦ Salary-building, not bonuses◦ Opt-in with “test drive” / “audit” option

To-do list◦ Defining details◦ Common assessments◦ Data structure

The Goal: Performance-Based System Don’t limit performance pay & evaluations to

teachers◦ Principals and building administrators◦ Support staff◦ Central office

Focus on results, invest in success!

Model Financial Transparency

Expenditures easy to find, detailed and searchable

Expenditures clearly linked to revenue sources

Exemplary Districts◦ Jefferson County◦ Douglas County◦ Adams 12◦ Cherry Creek

Subscription service Archived data

Financial Transparency: It’s the Law! House Bill 10-1036: Post finances online

◦ Current budget◦ Most recent financial audit◦ Quarterly or monthly financial reports◦ Salary schedules / policies◦ Expenditures: check registers & purchase cards◦ Investment reports (starting 7/1/2012)

Other requirements◦ Post within 60 days◦ Two prior years’ budgets◦ Link to CDE site

To Comply or Not To Comply? Real Accreditation Consequences

◦ Drop to “priority improvement” / “turnaround” Enforcement Depends on Self-Reporting

◦ Primarily citizen-driven accountability I.I. Review of District & BOCES sites

(7/2011)◦ 2010 requirements: 24 fully compliant; 36 mostly

compliant – out of 193◦ 2011 requirements: 8 fully compliant; 36 mostly

compliant – out of 193

Loopholes and Other Issues 60-day issue

◦ What does July 1, 2011 really mean?

Challenges for smaller districts / charters?◦ CDE template solves

most of the problem Wire transfers & spirit

of spending transparency◦ Aurora sending funds to

union (private info?)

Collective Bargaining Reform Colorado Context

◦ One of nine states with discretionary bargaining◦ 41 of 178 districts = exclusive union representation◦ Other districts practice “meet and confer” or have

no formal negotiation structure at all What Reform May Offer

◦ Management flexibility◦ Fiscal savings◦ Employee fairness◦ Academic gains, esp. for low-income students

(limited research)

Open Negotiations to Public

Good government: keep contracts in view

Remind employees whose interests they bargain against

Keep citizens engaged in reform process: observe, not participate

Of 41 districts, only Poudre and Colorado Springs 11 ensure open negotiations

Payroll Deduction Power

1) Automatic deductions = conflicted interests, politics, negotiations

2) 30 districts: Opt in any time, brief opt out windows (many have to ask union)

3) 6 districts: Non-union members opt out each year or pay full “dues equivalency”

Real Victims…

Union Release Time Privileges Release day allotments

◦ Professional development, grievance, negotiations, membership drives, lobbying, political activities?

◦ Jeffco (275 days a year): district pays teacher and sub; days used to lobby against SB 191

◦ Define and document acceptable uses; require reimbursement for substitutes / end practice

Union presidents and other officers◦ Poudre: $67,763 taxpayer subsidy (10-11)◦ Adams 12:$187,000 subsidy for 3 officers (09-10)◦ 5 districts require union to pay in full

Other Bargaining Opportunities1) Remove Seniority from Teacher Placement

“Last In, First Out” (LIFO): costly, ineffective Neediest students get least effective instructors Tiebreakers (Jeffco): Coin flip, drawing lots

2) Equal Access Many districts give unions exclusive privileges:

Emails, bulletin boards, equipment, facilities Teachers’ “Right to Know”

3) Bargaining Alternatives Park County ended agreement Gilcrest (Weld Re-1) ended meet & confer