Charter Schools would work MUCH better!

As I blogged a few days ago, there was a lot of hoopla several years ago when teachers union supporters in the Kentucky General Assembly passed an anti-charter school, bait-and-switch bill to create “Districts of Innovation” instead (House Bill 37, signed into law on April 11, 2012).

At that time, supporters of the bill claimed it would do just about everything good that charter schools were doing without having to actually create real charter schools.

It is now two and a half years later, and two rounds of Districts of Innovation selections have been completed, so we can look at some information about how this program is progressing. The answer is, not so much.

Here are some observations about the Districts of Innovation program:

• Only 17 Kentucky school districts have ever expressed interest in the Districts of Innovation program.

• Only 4 Districts of Innovation were named in Round 1, and just 3 more were added in Round 2.

• Interest in the program is obviously limited. Among the 17 original applicants, only four of the 13 unsuccessful applicants in Round 1 even bothered to reapply in Round 2. No new applicants were added in Round 2.

• Among the seven successful applicants for the program, several are fairly well known to the Bluegrass Institute. Eminence Independent and Taylor County were already innovative systems without the Districts of Innovation program (For Eminence Independent examples see here, here, here and here and for Taylor County see here, here and here). Selection of Eminence and Taylor County really didn’t create much new in the way of innovation for either.

• On the other hand, Jefferson County, a Cohort 1 District of Innovation, has yet to open even one School of Innovation. So, there doesn’t seem to be much urgency to innovate in this, Kentucky’s largest school district.

• Furthermore, the two schools Jefferson County is proposing for their first conversions to Schools of Innovation are both elementary schools. Why is there no interest in upper level innovating in Jefferson County? This is especially problematic because all of the district’s numerous Persistently Low-Achieving Schools are either middle or high schools. Where innovation is needed most (and where the district actually has the authority to require it without a vote of the teachers), it is absent.

• Just as telling, one of the two Jefferson County schools to be converted to a School of Innovation is the J.B. Atkinson Elementary School, which already is highly innovating (unlike a lot of other schools in Jefferson County). How does this noticeably increase innovation in the district?

I suppose Round 3 of the Districts of Innovation may be coming soon (assuming any districts even bother to apply). However, given the record of the Districts of Innovation program to date, I don’t think this bait-and-switch law to avoid implementing real charter schools in Kentucky is doing much to foster new centers of innovation and entrepreneurial spirit in our schools.

It remains to be seen if any more districts will come on board with the program, but, to be honest, with a ridiculous requirement that 70 percent of the teachers in a school have to vote to become a School of Innovation (unless the school is a Persistently Low-Achieving School), I don’t anticipate much action in the future. And, that’s really a shame for our kids.

Now, if Kentucky would join the 42 other states plus Washington, DC that have harnessed the out-of-the-box, and out-of-the-traditional-public-school-mindset resistance to change that charter schools unleash, then we might see some real innovation working for Kentucky’s children. You see, charters don’t get stuck with educators who don’t want to work hard and innovate, or who simply don’t know how. Charters can select their staff. If the staff members don’t produce, charter principals can retrain them or release them. That’s something the union-backed, bait-and-switch Districts of Innovation cannot provide. In fact, this bill was created to prevent such real innovation from occurring in Kentucky.

Here are some details and references:

According to the Kentucky Department of Education’s May 6, 2013 News Release 13-047, “17 DISTRICTS APPLY TO BE DISTRICTS OF INNOVATION,” 17 school districts initially applied to be a District of Innovation during the Round 1 selection process (listing follows later in the blog). Somehow, that got whittled down to a supposed 16 applicant districts by the time the Districts of Innovation Round 1 selections were announced in News Release 13-056 on June 5, 2013. That June 2013 News Release said just four of the original 17 districts that started the process got selected as “Cohort 1 Districts of Innovation.”

That left 13 districts who were unsuccessful in the Round 1 competition.

Round 2 of the Districts of Innovation process was interesting. Even though 13 districts were unsuccessful in Round 1, a Staff Note for the Kentucky Board of Education’s February 2014 meeting says only four districts even bothered to apply for Round 2. The Staff Note identifies those four Round 2 applicants as Cloverport Independent, Owensboro Independent, Owsley County and Trigg County. All had applied in Round 1.

Three of the four Round 2 applicants were selected as “Cohort 2 Districts of Innovation.” Only Cloverport failed to make the Round 2 cut. Maybe, it will be the only district to even apply in Round 3.

Here is the list of all 17 of the initially identified District of Innovation applicants along with a notation if they were successful. Note that nine of these districts lost all interest after Round 1 selections were announced and only one Round 2 applicant, Cloverport Independent, was not selected in Round 2. That seems to portend very little interest in a Round 3 process.

• Cloverport Independent

• Danville Independent (Selected Round 1)

• Eminence Independent (Selected Round 1)

• Fayette County

• Gallatin County

• Jackson Independent

• Jefferson County (Selected Round 1)

• Jessamine County

• Kenton County

• Mason County

• McCracken County

• Montgomery County

• Owensboro Independent (Selected Round 2)

• Owsley County (Selected Round 2)

• Taylor County (Selected Round 1)

• Trigg County (Selected Round 2)

• Woodford County