## Notes from 16 September 2025 [[2025-09-15|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2025-09-17|Next note →]] I came across an initiative that could easily be presented as a success story for school choice in the U.S. It's the story of the Denver Public Schools reforms (2008–2019), as documented in [impact evaluations](https://publicaffairs.ucdenver.edu/cepa) led by [Parker Baxter](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/#) at at the University of Colorado Denver’s Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA). Yet, the more I read about it, the more interesting the story became. The municipal education district kept running its own schools, added _charter_ and _Innovation Schools_, and then coordinated the whole system with common rules and levers. First, a brief note on terms: While charter schools are privately managed schools (non-profit or for-profit) that operate under a performance-based contract with the local government, **[Innovation Schools](https://www.cde.state.co.us/choice/innovationschools)** are district-run public schools operating under an **approved innovation plan**. This plan grants them waivers from district/state regulations and even collective bargaining provisions to reconfigure calendars, staffing, budgeting, or program models. Creating an Innovation School requires **secret-ballot approval from at least 60%** of the school's unionized educators. Returning to what they actually built (before the labels): a single accountability yardstick for _all_ schools (the **School Performance Framework**), a **unified enrollment** application system where families rank their options, **student-based budgeting** with _higher weights for need_, and an annual **Strategic Regional Analysis** that triggered the closure of low-performing schools where data showed gaps. More importantly, schools were given operational autonomy but remained under supervision with a focus on performance. For example, Denver ended forced placement, so even in district-operated schools, principals weren’t obligated to accept teachers they hadn’t hired (a clear example of agency for school leadership). On the other hand, the district ran anonymous staff surveys to capture teacher and staff perceptions of school leadership and climate, building a feedback channel alongside autonomy. In short, the reform was not about _laissez-faire_ choice. The district calls it a “[portfolio strategy](https://portfolio.dpsk12.org/o/authorizingandaccountability/page/authorizing-accountability),” a different way of thinking about how a school district should work. Instead of a "one-size-fits-all" model, it creates a "portfolio" of diverse schools, much like an investment portfolio, and manages them based on performance. This isn't just a story about creating a landscape of competition and choice. It's about market design: establishing rules for access, metrics, and funding that push competition toward equity goals. Did it work? CEPA’s causal studies report that Denver Public Schools moved from below the 5th percentile statewide in ELA/math pre-reform to about the 60th/63rd percentiles by 2018–19. The 4-year graduation rate rose from 43% (2008) to 71% (2019). Their models estimate that the reforms produced roughly 9–14 months of additional learning system-wide. Their student-level analysis attributes much of this improvement to the **reform strategy itself**, not demographic churn. Denver’s success history isn't just about choice. It was **curated plurality** (expanding what works, closing or restarting what doesn’t) inside a **designed market** with common access, common metrics, and weighted funding. The evidence suggests that this _design_, not just choice alone, drove the gains.