School Finance

Superintendents ponder the path forward

State policymakers got a message Tuesday from some key Colorado superintendents – time and flexibility are needed to effectively implement education reform programs.

Superintendent forum
Ten Colorado superintendents participated in the PEBC’s annual Superintendent Forum.

The comments came during the Public Education & Business Coalition’s annual Superintendent Forum. The session started, as have most education gatherings in recent weeks, with discussion of Amendment 66’s defeat.

Denver Superintendent Tom Boasberg called the financial issues facing school districts “an enormous challenge right now.” He added, “We should get away from this silly debate about should there be more funding or should there be more reform.”

While the panelists generally agreed that schools need more financial resources, a lot of the conversation was about the need for time – and district flexibility — to thoughtfully implement school change.

Jeffco Superintendent Cindy Stevenson noted that districts are facing “multiple reforms, none of them bad,” but implementing several things at once is “resource intensive and time intensive.

“Our failing as a state is we say, here’s a reform to implement, and we’re not going to give you any resources.”

Some panelists said educational change has been too top down.

“The cumulative effect of the well-intentioned legislation … has been very challenging to my school district,” said Dougco Superintendent Elizabeth Celania-Fagen. “We’re mandated to do a lot of things we don’t feel are the right things. … I would roll back some of that.”

Littleton Superintendent Scott Murphy said, “There’s a great deal of power in letting each community” decide its course, and Aurora Superintendent Rico Munn said, “Too often our friends in the legislature” rely on simplistic solutions.

Boulder Valley Superintendent Bruce Messinger picked up the same theme, saying, “There’s been an insensitivity to what’s going on locally.”

Other issues the superintendents touched on included:

strong>Education reform – “Our challenge is trying to find common ground on what reform is trying to achieve,” said St. Vrain Superintendent Don Haddad. “There’s a disconnect with some of the reforms” and what’s actually happening in classrooms, he added.

Common Core Standards – Celania-Fagen said, “The Common Core is an improvement but insufficient. [It’s] not high enough for what we’re aiming for in Douglas County.” Boasberg said, “The standards are right [but] it’s a matter of providing the kinds of supports” teachers need to use the standards effectively.

Early childhood education – Noting that A66 and its companion legislation, Senate Bill 13-213, would have imposed significant facilities costs on districts for preschool and full-day kindergarten, Celania-Fagen noted that nevertheless “We’re going to have to find ways to do that.”

Poudre Superintendent Sandra Smyser said early childhood education is “a huge part of how we close the achievement gap. … That’s a big conversation for the state.”

Also participating in Tuesday’s event were Cherry Creek Superintendent Harry Bull and Adams 12 Superintendent Chris Gdowski. The discussion was moderating by Donna Lynne, president of Kaiser Permanente Colorado.

Old buildings

Community members have plenty to say about CPS’ 10-year facilities master plan

PHOTO: Public Building Commission of Chicago
Frederic Chopin Elementary School in Humboldt Park is one of the few Chicago schools scheduled for building improvements as part of the school district's latest capital plan.

Carolina Gaete had a question. The North Lawndale resident wanted to know how Chicago Public Schools decides which improvements to fund at the hundreds of district campuses across the city. “How is it determined which schools are prioritized?” asked Gaete, co-director of community group Blocks Together and the mother of a CPS graduate. “Do you have a system—and what’s the process?”

Gaete’s question to the district—more on the answer later—was posed Monday during a community meeting in West Humboldt Park with CPS officials. Chicago schools that suffer from faulty boilers, leaky roofs, and crumbling masonry have little recourse given that CPS’ $189 million capital budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1 only addresses 6 percent of the estimated $3.4 billion need. 

PHOTO: Adeshina Emmanuel
The community meeting was held on June 11 in the Nia Family Center.

Between now and June 28, CPS is sending staff to community meetings to gather feedback for the latest draft of its Educational Facilities Master Plan. The 10-year plan, born out of a 2011 state law aimed at increasing transparency around the district’s investments in school buildings, is updated periodically. The law requires community input.

All of the meetings are open to the public. Most are hosted by parent advisory councils and community action councils. Here’s the list of meetings.

At the West Humboldt Park event, a handful of public school officials filed into the Nia Family Center and settled along the back wall of a conference room. Gaete and other members of the West Humboldt Community Action Council listened as Dispensa covered some basics: how the city prioritizes building investments across 16 planning zones, factoring for facility deficiencies as well as population and enrollment trends, and how the district calculates building utilization rates, which have been used to justify school closings.  

Gaete, like several councilmembers, is part of Blocks Together, a community group that helped craft the 2011 state law that sought to reform the facility planning process at CPS. Unsurprisingly, they were among the most vocal when Dispensa concluded his presentation and opened the floor to questions and comments. Gaete was ready: “How is it determined which schools are prioritized—what’s the process?”

In response, Dispensa explained that CPS prioritizes individual building needs starting with roofs and masonry, then it ranks next all needs related to mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, and interior finishes and program spaces. Areas outside schools such as playgrounds and parking lots rank last.

“There is a process,” Dispensa continued.  “It begins with having proper facility assessments from expert architects who go and visit every school and tell them what the priorities are.”

Gaete followed up: “How often are those assessments done?”

One of the district planners seated behind Gaete said every two years—but that the assessments had been suspended since 2015 due to budget constraints. Most of the building condition information in the draft facilities plan is outdated.

The district’s capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year identifies improvements for only 23 of CPS’ 526 campuses across the city. About 80 percent of the budget is earmarked for the first priority tier: exterior renovations to roofs, windows and masonry. Dispensa said the district could use more state funding to better address its capital needs.

But the meeting on Monday was about more than money and building assessments:

  • West Humboldt Community Action Council member and CPS parent Cecile Carroll, 34, said during the meeting that the plan doesn’t articulate where the district is going to place charter schools or how much money it spends on charter facilities. “We can’t do our job and plan better for our schools when we have a whole other piece to the puzzle we’re not able to see,” said Carroll, Gaete’s co-director at Blocks Together and a member of the Chicago Educational Facilities Task Force, which the Illinois General Assembly established in 2009 to examine decisions made by CPS.
  • Council members also questioned Dispensa about the district’s utilization formula—that is, the equation the district uses to determine whether a school is “underutilized,” “efficient,” or “overcrowded.” They suggested that CPS strongly consider alternatives to closing schools where the population of students has dwindled. They gave such ideas as sharing extra space with community based social service agencies, adjusting attendance boundaries, or investing in school improvements to boost academic achievement.
  • Several people asked the district to bolster its outreach efforts around the facilities plan, contending that not every community is represented by the groups on the current tour. They complained that the slate of June facility meetings only includes one with a Local School Council.

While Dispensa said CPS aims to work with certain groups, he pointed out these are open meetings. “I think that we can all agree the district hasn’t done as great a job with [community feedback] as we know we can,” he said. “And so we’re taking this opportunity to work with (community groups) to get a better sense of what that engagement looks like.”

School Finance

Here’s what led to Indiana’s heated debate about sending federal dollars to struggling schools

PHOTO: Alan Petersime

Indiana education officials are cautiously moving forward with a plan to send millions of extra dollars to the state’s most struggling schools next year — but how much, and to which schools, caused a contentious debate.

The Indiana State Board of Education is planning to direct more than $6.1 million in federal school improvement funds to schools where the state has intervened because of poor academic performance. Called turnaround academies, they include schools in state takeover as well as those with state-approved partnerships with charter school operators and other intensive supports. The funding, though, is a 6 percent decrease — or nearly $400,000 less — than what was allocated last year.

There are still questions about whether the plan, created by state board staff members, will pass muster under a new federal education law known as the Every Student Succeeds Act, which classifies schools eligible for school improvement funding differently than Indiana has in the past.

Until federal officials sign-off on the funding plan, said state Superintendent Jennifer McCormick, the Indiana Department of Education, which is tasked with handling federal Title I funding, won’t be doling out the extra funds to struggling schools just yet.

“That’s the big unknown right now,” said McCormick, the lone state board member who voted against the plan. “We will submit everything to the feds. As far as the recommendations that came out, until I have it in writing from the feds, we’re on pause … You don’t want the department of education at the state level to willy-nilly distribute federal funds.”

The board’s decision to follow its staff’s recommendations regarding the funding, rather than the education department’s, followed heated arguments between state board staff members and department officials. The two groups couldn’t agree on how much funding the turnaround schools should get — or if some of the schools were eligible to get any extra money at all.

The department said that under the federal ESSA law, schools can only receive the turnaround funds if they are in the lowest 5 percent of all Title I schools, receive an F letter grade from the state or a have a graduation rate of 67 percent or less. Indiana, though, considered Title I schools with F grades and any schools under state intervention to be eligible. It isn’t clear if the federal education department will allow three schools that meet Indiana’s threshold but not ESSA’s to continue receiving the funds.

“I think there are legal questions to still be answered,” said Nathan Williamson, director of Title grants and support for the state.

Also complicating matters, the state received less money from the federal government to give out for school improvement efforts overall — $17.4 million instead of $18.5 million. Plus, more schools are likely to qualify for those grants this year, primarily due to the new way the federal government is requiring the state to classify low-performing schools coupled with a dip in graduation rate. The state will have a final number in October, but department officials said it was probably going to be about 100 more schools, in addition to around 200 last year.

Because of the funding crunch, education department officials wanted to reduce the money sent just to schools under state intervention to $4 million instead of $6.1 million. That way, they said, there would be more leftover so that other low-rated schools that need help — but don’t qualify for state intervention — can apply for potential funds.

“All of them need at least some support,” said Williamson. “Otherwise, we’ll get them some support (when it’s too late), and it’ll be four years later and students, in the meantime, are the ones who suffer.”

But state board staff members argued that Indiana made a commitment to the schools under state intervention, and keeping their funding more consistent with what it has been in the past is the board’s responsibility.

“These are schools that we’re responsible for,” said board member Tony Walker, who represents Northwest Indiana. “How do we deliver a better school back to the district when we’re taking $1 million out from the people running the schools?”

The biggest discrepancy in funding proposals was for Charter Schools USA, the charter company that stepped in to manage three Indianapolis Public Schools when they were taken over by the state in 2011. The state board, which hired CSUSA, suggested maintaining the funding at close to the same rate. But the department of education suggested slashing CSUSA’s funding by $1.8 million for the three schools, in order to direct funds to other struggling schools.

McCormick said the department’s suggestions were based primarily on the number of schools that operators were in charge of. CSUSA, for example, is responsible for three schools. Indianapolis Public Schools, in charge of seven, would have gotten $1.4 million under the department’s plan. (The state board plan has them at $1.2 million.)

State board staff said their recommendations were more aligned with what the turnaround schools had budgeted themselves.