SHOULD DPS PUT A MORATORIUM ON NEW BUILDINGS?

Some board candidates call for moratorium; “we need to support what we already have”

Some Denver school board candidates want to slow closing or opening new schools.

Several candidates for the Denver Public Schools board are calling for a moratorium on closing schools or opening new ones, but others say such a move would impair the district’s ability to control what happens in its own backyard.

The board has the ability to approve new traditional, charter or innovation schools. In August, it gave a nod to two new schools. DPS has projected declining enrollment in the early 2020s, however, which has led some to question whether adding schools is a viable strategy.

Board seats are open in Districts 1 and 5, and voters across the city also will decide who occupies an at-large seat. The Denver Post asked all candidates how they would approach school governance as part of a series of stories on important issues facing the district ahead of the November election.

Tay Anderson, who is running for the at-large seat, called for a moratorium on approving new schools and on closing schools. He said he’s in favor of combining several of the smaller high schools in the Montbello neighborhood to create a comprehensive school, however.

“We need to support what we already have in Denver,” he said.

Scott Baldermann, who is running in District 1, and Julie Bañuelos, who is running in District 5, said they would support a moratorium on new charter schools and on closing schools, but would also consider new district-run and innovation ideas.

“If the school model comes out of communities, that’s a whole different game,” Bañuelos said.

Alexis Menocal Harrigan, who is running for the at-large seat, said a moratorium wouldn’t make sense, because charters could just go to the state Charter School Institute for authorization and the district would lose its ability to shape new schools. Brad Laurvick, who is running in District 5, agreed that a moratorium would be ineffective, and said the board has a duty to consider all applications.

“I don’t know how you can do good work without doing it caseby-case,” Laurvick said.

Tony Curcio, who is running for the District 5 seat, and Diana Romero Campbell, who is running in District 1, said they would consider new schools if they see community demand.

“I think there are very thoughtful ways and processes to determine” whether to open a school, Romero Campbell said.

Radhika Nath, who is running in District 1, said a new school might make sense if it would decrease class sizes and be financially sustainable, but the district needs to

focus on the quality of the schools it already has first. Natela Manuntseva, who is running for the at-large seat, agreed the district should put its efforts into existing schools.

None of the candidates were fond of the idea of closing schools due to poor test scores. Nath and Bañuelos said they thought the district should focus on supporting struggling schools, but also should consider that scores may not accurately reflect what students are learning.

“Beyond destabilizing children and families, we destabilize entire communities” when schools close, Nath said.

Romero Campbell and Laurvick said the district should only close schools when communities support the idea, and should support them through the process. Manuntseva said the district may need to close some buildings if they can’t be maintained anymore, but should make an effort to find a new home for any schools affected.

Curcio and Menocal Harrigan said they didn’t want to close schools, but low enrollment in some buildings may force the district to consider the idea.

“We’re going to have to have difficult conversations about school consolidations,” Menocal Harrigan said.

Who makes decisions?

While the candidates are roughly aligned when it comes to school closures, they have a spectrum of ideas about how to make decisions about budgeting and programs.

DPS has three types of schools: traditional district-run, charter and innovation. Both charters and innovation schools receive waivers from some district policies, though they have different oversight structures.

Bañuelos said the different governance models make it difficult to monitor if schools are spending their funds in ways that help the most vulnerable kids. Autonomy on hiring and compensation decisions is contributing to high teacher turnover rates, she said.

“The flexibility has created a lack of accountability,” she said.

Menocal Harrigan countered that schools need more autonomy on curriculum, professional development and improvement strategies, because principals are closer than the central office to their communities.

Romero Campbell and Manuntseva said they also support greater flexibility at the school level.

“Centralizing everything, I think that’s what brought us to where we are today,” Manuntseva said.

Nath said she supports reevaluating the waivers that charter and innovation schools receive. Some might benefit all schools, while others, like those opting out of district salary schedules, may be counterproductive because they make it harder to retain teachers, she said. Anderson said he also thought the district should reevaluate its waivers to level the playing field.

“We know that every school is ultimately different,” Anderson said.

Curcio said he supports trying new ideas at the school level, but he’s concerned that principals don’t have the support they need to innovate while fulfilling their usual leadership duties.

“I’m very concerned that we’re overtaxing our school leaders,” he said.

Baldermann and Laurvick said they support allowing principals flexibility with any extra funds, but the district first needs to fund priorities like social workers, nurses and music classes.

“Principals, they have a certain budget and they have to make certain decisions, like do they want a part-time nurse or a music program? I think those are the kinds of decisions that should come back to the district,” Baldermann said.

Replacing the SPF

A committee is working on updating the school performance framework, or SPF, that the district uses to rate schools, but some candidates think the district should scrap it.

The SPF uses proficiency rates on state tests, growth in test scores, graduation rates and parent satisfaction surveys to give schools a color ranking, from red to blue. If a school has wide disparities in scores between student groups, it is knocked down a level.

Baldermann would like to see the SPF ended, so the district could redirect what it spends on rating schools toward classrooms. If the district keeps it, however, it should simplify the system, perhaps by separating out the different components so parents better understand them, he said.

Laurvick raised similar concerns, and said while the equity measure is important, it doesn’t require a full rating system. Bañuelos and Manuntseva said the district could get rid of the SPF and focus on schools’ practices.

Anderson doesn’t want to eliminate the SPF, but suggested it could focus more on post-secondary readiness, which could be measured by scores on the SAT, the military’s standard aptitude test or WorkKeys assessments. Nath also questioned the prominence of state test scores in the rankings, saying they could focus more on growth.

Romero Campbell and Curcio said they hoped the district will make the SPF easier to understand, but will continue focusing on equity.

Menocal Harrigan made the strongest defense of the current ratings, which sets a higher standard for a school to meet expectations than the state system does.

“I want my child to be held to higher expectations,” Menocal Harrigan said.