Future of Schools

Appeals court reinstates Dougco vouchers

Douglas County’s school voucher program does not violate the state constitution, the Colorado Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 ruling Thursday, overturning a lower court’s finding that the program is unconstitutional.

An audience member fills out a question card about the Douglas County voucher plan.
One of many audience members filling out a question card on the Douglas County voucher proposal in early 2011. <em>EdNews</em> file photo

The ruling won’t have an immediate impact on the district’s pilot Choice Scholarship Program, which would allow Douglas County students to attend private and even religious schools using public funds, district officials said. The program remains on hold.

But the district is hailing the ruling as a victory in a case that may have national ramifications.

“This is incredibly positive news and a huge victory for the students and parents of Douglas County,” said Douglas County Public Schools board President John Carson. “We know that each student learns differently, and our goal is to provide every parent with the opportunity to choose the best possible educational environment for their child.”

Plaintiffs in the case, including the Taxpayers for Public Education, vowed to appeal the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court.

“We are disappointed but not discouraged,” said Anne Kleinkopf, a director of the organization. “We have every confidence the Colorado Supreme Court will read the facts and law in the same way the dissenting appeals judge and the same way the trial court did and will indeed find that the voucher program is illegal and unconstitutional.”

Douglas County board member Craig Richardson, an attorney, said he didn’t expect a Colorado Supreme Court ruling until 2014. The voucher pilot program will be on hold until the Supreme Courts issues its ruling, he said.

“The effect of going to the Supreme Court will be to stay the Court of Appeals reversal,” Richardson said.

Appellate Judges Steven Bernard, Dennis Graham and Jerry Jones issued the final ruling, with Bernard dissenting.

In Thursday’s ruling, Jones said “Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proving the unconstitutionality of the (voucher program) beyond a reasonable doubt, or by any other potentially applicable standard. None of them have standing to assert a claim under the (law). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment cannot stand.”

Kleinkopf said Bernard in his dissent argued that the voucher program violated the “no aid to sectarian” provisions of the Colorado Constitution. By casting a dissenting vote, Kleinkopft said Bernard sent a “strong signal that he believes his colleagues were wrong.”

In November, legal advocates for and against the district’s voucher program argued their case before the three-judge panel.

Proponents urged the appellate judges to overturn a lower court’s decision in August 2011 finding the voucher plan unconstitutional. Meanwhile, critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Taxpayers for Public Education, argued that the initial ruling was sound.

Douglas County school board members approved the voucher pilot, which would use public dollars to help send students to private schools, by a 7-0 vote in March 2011. A Denver judge declared the plan unconstitutional last August and the district filed its notice of appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals.

In April 2012, opening briefs were filed by the district and the state, its co-defendent in the suit. Taxpayers for Public Education and other plaintiffs then filed their responses.

Under the program, private schools, including private schools that are not located in Douglas County, can apply to participate.

Those private schools must satisfy a variety of eligibility criteria, some of which relate to academic rigor, accreditation, student conduct and financial stability, according to court records. Participating private schools must agree to allow the district to administer assessment tests to students enrolled in the choice scholarship program.

Thirty-four private schools applied to participate in the Choice Scholarship Program for the 2011-2012 school year and the district contracted with 23 of those schools. But the district court ruled halted the program before it began.

Of the 23 schools, 14 are located outside Douglas County, and 16 teach religious tenets or beliefs. Many are funded at least in part by and affiliated with particular religious organizations.  Many of the participating private schools base admissions decisions at least in part on students’ and parents’ religious beliefs and practices. Many also require students to attend religious services.

However, the voucher program – modeled after other programs across the country that have prevailed in court – gives students the right to “receive a waiver from any required religious services at the [participating private school],” according to court documents.

The district would administer the program under the Choice Scholarship Charter School, which would handle monitoring students’ class schedules and attendance at participating private schools. However, the charter school would not “have a building, teachers, or curriculum.”

upheaval

Frustrations over principal turnover flare up at IPS School 43

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy
School 43

It began with a tame slideshow presentation about hiring a new principal at School 43. But the Wednesday night meeting soon spiraled into a venting session — as parents and teachers pleaded with Indianapolis Public Schools to send in more staff.

Bakari Posey, the principal of School 43, departed for another job last week in the latest upheaval at the school, which is also known as James Whitcomb Riley. The assistant principal, Endia Ellison, has taken over in an interim capacity, as the district searches for a new leader for the school, which has faced significant turnover in recent years.

“This school needs help,” said Natasha Milam, who has three children at School 43, which serves about 450 students in prekindergarten to eighth-grade. “We need you all to listen. And we need you all to hear us.”

Milam, who volunteers at the school, said that because the building does not have enough staff to handle behavior problems, students are suspended far too often — meaning students are at home doing chores or getting into trouble, instead of in class learning.

Many in the neighborhood had hoped Posey, who is from the community, would be able to turn the school around after the previous two school leaders left their posts just months into the job. But under Posey’s leadership, the school continued to struggle on state tests, with just 7 percent of students passing both the math and English exams last year.

And after two-and-a-half years on the job, Posey left and began working this week as assistant principal at Fall Creek Valley Middle School in Lawrence Township. In an email Thursday, Posey said that he left because he thought the position in Lawrence would help him grow professionally and it was closer to his home.

Posey also disputed the picture of School 43 as a campus in crisis. He said this school year, there hasn’t been “turmoil in the school in regards to student behavior,” suspensions were down, and the campus has been “very calm.” (Suspension numbers could not immediately be verified.) He also said that Indianapolis Public Schools provided “great support” to school staff.

Nonetheless, parents and teachers’ at the meeting Wednesday said the school has serious problems.

Ryesha Jackson, a 4th-grade teacher who has been at the school a little over a year, said there are not enough staff to help with student discipline problems. That makes it hard for educators to teach, she said.

“We have fights almost every day,” Jackson said. “I guess my question is, ‘What are we doing right now to support teachers?’”

School 43 is a neighborhood school, on the north side of the district. More than 75 percent of students there are black, and almost 70 percent come from families with incomes so low that they are eligible for free or reduced-price meals — about the district average.

Indianapolis Public Schools interim Superintendent Aleesia Johnson said district and school leaders would work together to develop a plan to address the urgent problems at School 43.

“But what I can’t give you right now is the plan for that help,” she said. “That takes time and coordination with the school staff.”

The district is gathering input about what school community members are looking for in a principal before posting a listing, officials said. Finalists will be interviewed by committees of parents, community members, and school and district staff. The goal is to name a new principal by April.

Also at Wednesday’s meeting was a small contingent from the IPS Community Coalition, a group that is often critical of the Indianapolis Public Schools administration, particularly the district’s partnerships with charter schools.

Michele Lorbieski, a resident from the north side who ran unsuccessfully for the Indianapolis Public Board with the support of the coalition last year, said the district cannot just rely on the next principal to fix the school.

“What I’d hoped to hear tonight was what the school district was doing to put things in place to stop this revolving door of principals,” she said.

District officials did not directly address why turnover has been so high among principals at School 43. But Brynn Kardash, a district official who recently began working with the school, said that the central office is doing more to support it this year.

School 43 was added this year to the transformation zone — an effort to help troubled schools that includes dedicated support and regular visits from a team at the central office, said Kardash, the district’s executive director of schools for the zone. Educators in the zone get additional training, extra planning time, and help analyzing student data, she said.

“The goal is to really support Ms. Ellison in work that she’s doing,” Kardash said, “which then leads to, hopefully, teachers feeling that support in the classroom.”

technical difficulties

This personalized learning program was supposed to boost math scores. It didn’t, new study finds

PHOTO: Patrick Wall
A student at I.S. 228 in Brooklyn does online work through Teach to One, a program that grew out of the iZone.

A program that Bill Gates once called “the future of math” didn’t improve state test scores at schools that adopted it, according to a new study.

The research examines Teach to One, a “personalized learning” program used in schools across 11 states and which has drawn support from a number of major funders, including the Gates Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings. (Gates and CZI are also funders of Chalkbeat.)

At five schools in Elizabeth, New Jersey, students who used Teach to One didn’t improve any faster than similar students who didn’t use the program, even after three years. The results underscore the limited evidence for claims that such technology programs can dramatically improve student learning, even as they have become magnets for philanthropic dollars.

“The original aspirations, that Teach to One programs were going to have huge positive effects on math scores — we can rule that out with these studies,” said Jonah Rockoff, a Columbia professor who studied an earlier iteration of the program.

Teach to One says its approach is designed to help students steadily learn math skills, regardless of how unprepared or advanced they are. Students spend time on a computer as well as with a teacher and working in small groups. Students receive individualized schedules each day based on their progress, and a computer program adapts the curriculum to students’ strengths and weaknesses in the form of a “playlist.”

New Classrooms, the organization behind Teach To One, suggests that the Elizabeth results aren’t the full story.

It points to a separate analysis released this week that looks at a broader group of schools — 14, from several districts — that used the program. That study shows Teach to One students making above-average gains on a test known as the MAP, which is taken on a computer with questions changing as students answer correctly or incorrectly.

New Classrooms co-founder Joel Rose suggested in a statement that those computer-adaptive tests capture something that state tests can miss: students’ progress.

“What seems to be emerging is a real tension in math between approaches focused on long-term academic growth and state accountability systems,” he said.

Rockoff said there might be something to New Classroom’s argument that the study using adaptive test is better able to showcase students’ gains. “If [students] are at a grade four level but they’re in grade six, teaching them grade four material is going to hurt them on the state test,” he said.

But the author of the second study, Jesse Margolis, and a number of other researchers who spoke to Chalkbeat note that it cannot show whether Teach to One caused any of the students’ gains, though — a major limitation.

“While this study cannot establish causality, it is encouraging,” Margolis wrote. (The New Jersey study is better able to establish cause and effect, but it also has limitations and does not rely on random assignment.)

The New Jersey study isn’t the first to show that Teach to One didn’t improve test scores: so did Rockoff’s 2015 report on three New York City middle schools that looked at both state and MAP tests.

One possible explanation is that Teach to One is helpful to students in some places but not others. Margolis said his study examined the same five Elizabeth schools as the Columbia study and also found minimal gains there, but that schools elsewhere seemed to see larger improvements.

Researcher John Pane of RAND, a leader in studying personalized learning, says the results are important to understanding a field with limited research to date.

“Because we have so little evidence on personalized learning,” he said, “every data point can be helpful for us to start triangulating and piecing together what works and what doesn’t work.”