August 23, 2012
One last
swing – before another $10 million is misspent?
The School
Improvement Grant to DPS and Pueblo City 60
A number of us have asked if the three-year federal grant
of over $37 million to help turn around over a dozen Colorado schools has
proved effective. After year one
(2010-11) there was evidence of improvement in only a few schools—most notably,
nice results for little Haskin Elementary in Center School District 26 JY. Those defending the SIG effort reminded us how
late the grants were announced and made available, how little time the schools
had to restructure or tackle the big changes that first year, and how we invariably
see an “implementation dip” when schools undergo fundamental change, etc. etc.
pp. 3-4 - Breakdown of $25 million SIG funds awarded
to 12 DPS and Pueblo City schools
pp. 4-9 -
DPS- 6 SIG Schools- Academic Growth
pp. 9- 16 - DPS- 6 SIG Schools- Academic
Achievement
pp. 17-18 - Pueblo City 60 – 5 SIG Schools - Academic
Growth
|
With
the results of the 2012 state tests in, we ask the same question—Is this program effective?—with more
urgency. Over $20 million has now been
directed at these schools in years one and two.
Tell us:
·
Are
the funds making a difference in the academic achievement at these schools,
especially in the two districts most heavily involved in this grant: DPS and
Pueblo City 60?
·
If
not, will the state and the districts still hand out the last third of the $37
million—well over $10 million in 2012-13?
Two
other questions:
·
What
have Colorado school leaders and educators learned about turning around
low-performing schools from this experience and what will we do differently—if
anything—in the next few years?
·
To
be more specific: as Colorado received another $7.5 in federal funds in June
2011 “to increase academic achievement” in a new group of “chronically
low-performing schools," what has CDE learned so that it manages this
second round differently than it did the first round?
I
do not want to read one more school official, thank you very much, put accountability and transparency in the same sentence.
Enough with the reassuring words: don’t say it; do it! We simply want people
overseeing this effort to square with us about what is and is not working—and
to halt efforts where we now have even more reason to say the results to date are
entirely unsatisfactory.
A look back—and a final swing after two strikes
I
have followed the 2010 federal School Improvement Grant of $37 million to
Colorado for two years. The purpose, to raise
the academic performance in the state’s lowest, is laudable. But I considered it a potential tragedy when
I first did a report for the Donnell-Kay Foundation in the fall of 2010 and saw
how the grants were determined. I feared
it had become a misuse of taxpayer money when I summarized the year one CSAP
results at the SIG schools in my newsletter in August, Another View #81 – “$37 million to Colorado for Turnaround
Schools-How’s That Going?”, as well as in the Background report I worked on for
A Plus Denver, “Turning around low-achieving schools in Colorado” (published in
October 2011).
Some might ask: Should we rethink this effort sooner rather than later? Should we proceed to spend year two money
much as it was the first year? One
assumes there are even leaders willing to say: For $10 million, shouldn’t we expect better results?
Another View #81, Aug. 5, 2011
|
Here is
one last futile swing, perhaps, before another $10 million gets thrown away—I’m
sorry, I mean distributed—to two
districts and 10 schools where we see so little evidence of academic improvement—after
$20 million has been spent.
There are two other reasons I am compelled to write on this
topic once more.
1) The silence. The Colorado Department of Education has not
put forth a report on how the money has been used or how effective the grants
have been, nor have these two districts.
Denver’s assistant superintendent for post-secondary readiness, Antwan
Wilson, responded to my Another View #81
on EdNews Colorado last August,
asserting that:
“The Denver
Public Schools’ initiative to turn around underperforming schools is in its
early stages, and there’s still a great deal of work ahead. But, contrary to what
a recent EdNews commentary suggests, there are some strong initial signs of progress.”
But he was only able to use the growth
scores at Lake Middle and Lake International to back this up. See pages 8 and 14 for indications of how the
two programs performed in 2012. How sad
to think of that 8th grade graduating class at Lake Middle, having
survived all the changes in that building the past few years, ending with such
low TCAP scores (p. 14). Will anyone
tell those students all this federal money made a positive difference in their
academic performance?
Wilson went on:
DPS has embarked on an ambitious plan to turn around some
of its most chronically underperforming schools for one simple reason: to
ensure that every student in the district receives an education that prepares
them for success in college and career….
Within the next three years, the goal is to create
rigorous learning communities at each turnaround school or campus, and we
expect to see major jumps in student performance as this new culture takes
root. We’re already starting to see signs of growth.”
A year later, I wish it were so—but the
evidence does not support this hope. Two
years down, one to go—and except for North High this year, we see no “major
jumps in student performance.” At most of
the schools, quite the opposite.
“After the
first year of a three-year contract with the company, one school's abysmal
state performance score did not budge.
“The other
five got worse.
“While
Pueblo City Schools officials say it's normal for academic achievement to lag
after a school shake-up, some education-reform experts questioned why the
district received a second round of grant money when scores declined and
whether the district's reforms are radical enough to work.
Jennifer Brown, The Denver Post, Aug. 20, 2012 |
This past winter The Denver
Post’s Jennifer Brown wrote a solid three-part study on the SIG funds (Feb.
19-21). Part 2 offered a devastating
look at implementation in Pueblo, “Federal grants don’t equal academic progress
in low-performing Pueblo schools” (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20002284).
It raised huge questions about the $7.4
million expected to go to the “turnaround company” with whom the district had
contracted, Global Partnership Schools (See box). And this spring Nancy Mitchell at Education News Colorado brought deeper
insight into the turnaround efforts at Lake, “Growing pains at Lake’s Denver
campus” (April 16, 2012) http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2012/04/16/36593-growing-pains-at-denvers-lake-campus.
The
response to these reports? Virtually
nothing. Given the lack of comment from
CDE, DPS, or Pueblo, we have reason to fear that the third year of funds will
soon go out to these schools in spite of two years now – TWO—of little or no improvement.
2) My second reason for writing: actually,
Denver has commented again, recently, or so it appears, in its positive account
of growth in the schools in the Far Northeast.
But for Rachel Noel and Montbello, we do not see the evidence.
Federal funds
for School Improvement Grant in Colorado – 2010-2013
First, a
quick reminder—taken from the Background report for A Plus Denver, recounting
the amount of money that was to be awarded to six DPS schools and six Pueblo
schools between from 2010-2011 to 2012-13, to support their
turnaround/transformation efforts over three school years:
School District
DPS -
|
Amount Awarded
|
Model Selection*
|
|
Gilpin Elementary
|
$1,260,033
|
Turnaround
|
|
Greenlee Elementary
|
$2,256,517
|
Turnaround
|
|
Lake
Middle
|
$2,083,232
|
Restart & Turnaround
|
|
Rachel
Noel Middle
|
$2,776,580
|
Transformation
|
|
Montbello
High
|
$3,388,350
|
Transformation
|
|
North High
|
$3,106,922
|
Transformation
|
|
Pueblo #60
|
Central
High
|
$2,799,228
|
Transformation
|
Freed
Middle
|
$2,063,811
|
Turnaround
|
|
Lemuel
Pitts Middle
|
$2,159,601
|
Turnaround
|
|
James
Risley Middle
|
$2, 103,975
|
Turnaround
|
|
Roncalli
Middle
|
$2,212,131
|
Transformation
|
|
Youth
& Family Academy Charter
|
$1,578,681
|
Transformation
|
*The federal
grant provided four “intervention models” for these low-performing schools. Each school needed to choose one of the four:
turnaround, restart, transformation, or closure. In addition, three Denver schools were closed
using less than $100,000 of the federal grant: Philips Elementary, Skyland
Community High, and Rishel Middle.
Denver Public Schools – Academic Growth at 6 SIG
Schools
DPS has reason to be pleased overall with the 2012 growth
scores. But not in most of the Denver schools
targeted by the School Improvement Grant.
The good news for the district—overall--is here:
Recent TCAP results for Denver Public
Schools found growth
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
||||
Median
Growth Percentile
|
%
Catching Up
|
Median
Growth Percentile
|
%
Catching Up
|
Median
Growth Percentile
|
%
Catching Up
|
|
54
|
30%
|
57
|
25%
|
53
|
13%
|
|
* The statewide average median growth percentile is 50. A higher
number means a district is outpacing the state.
|
||||||
** "Catching up" refers to the percentage of students
in a district likely to achieve proficiency within three years or by grade
10, whichever is sooner, based on students' test history. The reverse of that
figure refers to those likely not to achieve proficiency.
|
||||||
From Education News Colorado
Inside Van Schoales’ recent piece on Education News Colorado, “Is slow and steady good enough for DPS” (Aug.
10, 2012- ), we can see the growth scores for individual schools, including
five of the SIG schools (Lake was not included). Of those SIG schools, only North High showed
growth in reading, writing, and math.
Change in students scoring - Proficient and
Advanced from 2011 to 2012
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
|
District average
|
2.71
|
2.2
|
1.3
|
North High
|
12.2
|
10.4
|
.89
|
Greenlee Elementary
|
6.5
|
-5.53
|
-5.46
|
Montbello High
|
-3.44
|
-2.39
|
-1.03
|
Rachel Noel
|
-6.47
|
2.68
|
-7.8
|
Gilpin Elementary
|
-8.68
|
-1.18
|
-20.88
|
Congratulations to North
High. But in two of three—or all three—academic
disciplines, students at these other “turnaround” schools did not even make the
expected one year’s progress. So I am mystified
by the words in the press release from Denver’s Communications Office, “DPS Students
Post Highest Year-to-Year Growth among State’s 20 Largest Districts.” It states:
Notably,
the reform efforts at schools in Far Northeast Denver and Northwest Denver are
driving significant academic improvement. Improvements being made at schools
that have undergone turnaround reform efforts the past few years are
demonstrating significantly higher achievement levels.
In Far
Northeast Denver, where DPS launched a comprehensive school turnaround effort
during the 2011-12 school year, student growth and proficiency gains rapidly
outpaced historical trends for the region. In math, reading and writing,
students at both turnaround schools and new schools posted higher scale scores
than previous years. Additionally, student growth scores across content areas
jumped from last year to this year.
Can this press release be speaking
of Rachel Noel and Montbello High, the two schools in the Far Northeast that
were to receive close to $6 million in SIG funds from 2010-2013? Has some of the $3.8 million* designated for
years one and two at Rachel Noel and Montbello gone to the other new Far Northeast schools that DPS is celebrating? If so, please explain. I for one assume Denver’s 2010 application to
CDE for the SIG funds—written months BEFORE the plan for the Far Northeast was
approved by the Denver school board—is still a meaningful guide, at least to
the extent that the purpose has been to improve these two schools. If the
principal goal was to turn around Noel and Montbello, can we say that is
happening? If the goal has changed, if
the new purpose has been to use the federal grant to better serve the Far
Northeast students—and Noel and Montbello’s fate and improvement have become
secondary, perhaps there is some rationale for that. But I don’t see how that matches the original
purpose.
__________
*DPS press release of Oct. 10, 2010: “DPS Receives $14.4
Million in School-Turnaround Grants,” stated that the annual amounts to
Montbello would be $1,129,450 and to Rachel Noel, $800,527. After two years, that comes to $3,859,954 for
these two schools. That same press
release stated the annual amount “over the next three years” to Gilpin would be
$420,011, to Greenlee $752,172, and to Lake close to $500,000—with additional
funds supporting the West Denver Prep program opening on that campus. After two
years, that comes to over $3,300,000.
The DPS press release continues:
This
growth was especially pronounced in math. As part of the turnaround initiative,
seven Far Northeast schools instituted a comprehensive daily math tutorial
program for all students in 4th, 6th and 9th
grades. All of the schools participating in the program had median growth
percentile scores above 64 points in math, while the two highest performers—Green
Valley Elementary and McGlone Elementary—each had growth scores exceeding 80
points.
Rachel Noel had no sixth graders
so perhaps it did not benefit from this program. Montbello is phasing out its
traditional program and TCAP results record only 44 ninth graders taking the
test. Still, see the chart above for the
negative growth scores in math at both schools last year.
The press release then quotes
Superintendent Tom Boasberg:
“As
encouraging as it is to see these types of results, we know we need to do more.
There are still far too many students who are behind. Our goal is to have every
student succeed, and we have much work to achieve this goal. The turnaround efforts, while showing
promise, are still in the very early stages, and we have several other schools
that continue to underperform. It’s still a long road ahead to our ultimate
goal of eradicating our achievement gaps and getting every student ready for
college and career. We’re on the right path, however, and picking up speed.…”
Boasberg’s
comments may be accurate for several new efforts, and that’s great, but they do
not hold up for the two Far Northeast schools that were the central target—yes?—of
the $6 million School Improvement Grant. And who can see much “promise” after more than
$3 million* (footnote previous page) has been spent to improve Gilpin, Greenlee,
and Lake?
A closer look:
The 6 DPS schools receiving SIG funds for
turnaround/transformation efforts
Again,
the average growth in DPS for 2012 was 54% in Reading. 57% in Writing, 53% in Math. Now look at the six schools receiving year
two SIG funds. Growth in 2012 is only
apparent at North High. Growth in
writing was above 50% at Lake Middle and Rachel Noel. Otherwise, no growth scores over 50%. At Gilpin, Greenlee, and Montbello, low
growth means that with each passing year, an even higher percentage of their students
are unlikely to meet state standards by the time they graduate.
GILPIN ELEMENTARY
READING
|
Elementary
|
41.0
|
62.0
|
0.0%
|
66.7%
|
MATH
|
Elementary
|
11.5
|
87.0
|
0.0%
|
16.7%
|
WRITING
|
Elementary
|
30.0
|
74.0
|
14.8%
|
33.3%
|
GREENLEE ELEMENTARY
READING
|
Elementary
|
42.0
|
57.0
|
26.2%
|
59.4%
|
MATH
|
Elementary
|
42.0
|
77.0
|
5.9%
|
35.5%
|
WRITING
|
Elementary
|
41.0
|
72.0
|
13.6%
|
33.3%
|
*The
Colorado Growth Model uses four key indicators – based on an analysis of
students’ testing history – to paint a picture of academic progress by school
and district:
Median
Growth Percentile: Shows how much a group of students is progressing
compared to others. Typical growth for an individual student centers around 50.
Lower means slower growth, higher means better than average.
Adequate
Growth Percentile: Shows the growth that students needed on average
in the past year to reach or maintain proficiency within three years or by the tenth
grade, whichever comes first. With this indicator, lower is better. Lower
numbers mean less growth is required.
“Catching
up”: The percentage of students
who previously scored below proficient in this subject but who have shown
enough growth in the past year to reach proficiency within three years or by
10th grade. They’re “catching up” to proficiency so a higher number is better.
“Keeping
up”: The percentage of students
who previously scored proficient and who are on track to maintain that level
over three years or through 10th grade. They’re “keeping up” their proficiency
so a higher number is better.
From Education News Colorado,
http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2012/08/08/42114-find-your-schools-2012-growth-scores.
LAKE MIDDLE
READING
|
Middle
|
48.5
|
67.5
|
26.5%
|
66.7%
|
MATH
|
Middle
|
46.0
|
98.0
|
5.5%
|
45.2%
|
WRITING
|
Middle
|
62.0
|
88.0
|
12.3%
|
51.4%
|
LAKE INTERNATIONAL
READING
|
Middle
|
50.0
|
62.0
|
22.8%
|
74.2%
|
MATH
|
Middle
|
42.0
|
84.0
|
10.9%
|
27.8%
|
WRITING
|
Middle
|
47.0
|
76.0
|
18.1%
|
50.5%
|
RACHEL NOEL MIDDLE
READING
|
Middle
|
42.0
|
66.0
|
21.9%
|
54.1%
|
MATH
|
Middle
|
34.0
|
97.0
|
2.9%
|
20.5%
|
WRITING
|
Middle
|
52.0
|
84.0
|
14.9%
|
52.3%
|
MONTBELLO HIGH
READING
|
High
|
25.5
|
95.0
|
6.4%
|
69.2%
|
MATH
|
High
|
30.0
|
99.0
|
1.8%
|
66.7%
|
WRITING
|
High
|
32.0
|
99.0
|
1.9%
|
55.6%
|
NORTH HIGH
READING
|
High
|
53.0
|
60.0
|
22.9%
|
85.0%
|
MATH
|
High
|
55.0
|
99.0
|
3.0%
|
36.0%
|
WRITING
|
High
|
63.0
|
93.0
|
18.8%
|
61.2%
|
Denver Public Schools – Academic Achievement
6 SIG Schools - TCAP scores (% proficient and
advanced)
I
begin with the growth scores because it is these that DPS is eager to tout, not
the academic achievement, and even here the story is disappointing, to say the
least, in five of these SIG schools.
Now
consider the more disturbing academic achievement scores. Of course I realize that comparing the 2011
achievement scores of that year’s 7th
grade against this past year’s group
of 7th graders is not a look at growth. Understood.
Not the same class. Agreed. But in the SIG application each school listed its
goals to improve academic achievement each
of the three years of the grant. It
is not happening at five of the six schools.
The
TCAP proficiency and advanced scores are taken from Education News Colorado. To emphasize a few points, a few comments
precede each school’s scores. I begin
with the two schools in the Far Northeast.
MONTBELLO HIGH SCHOOL
1.
Lowest 9th grade reading score in five years.
2.
9th grade scores lower from 2011, largely unchanged from 2010 before
the SIG funds were made available.
3.
10th grade scores have fallen from 31% proficient in 2010—before the
SIG funds were available-to 18% proficient after year one of the grant, to 16%
proficient after year two of the grant.
4.
10th grade writing math, science all lower than they were in 2010
before the funds were made available.
Reading
|
9
|
23
|
28
|
25
|
30
|
31
|
86%
|
Writing
|
9
|
9
|
14
|
6
|
15
|
12
|
86%
|
Math
|
9
|
7
|
9
|
6
|
6
|
8
|
86%
|
Reading
|
10
|
16
|
18
|
31
|
35
|
31
|
86%
|
Writing
|
10
|
6
|
6
|
11
|
15
|
11
|
86%
|
Math
|
10
|
5
|
5
|
7
|
4
|
4
|
86%
|
Science
|
10
|
5
|
5
|
10
|
8
|
7
|
86%
|
RACHEL NOEL MIDDLE SCHOOL
1.
7th grade - Improved writing scores from
2011 to 2012.
2.
8th grade - Writing scores held steady from
2011 to 2012 – 19% proficient.
3.
2012 scores declined from 2011 scores in all other
categories.
4.
2012 scores for 7th grade reading – dropped
11 % points from 2010, before the SIG funds were available.
5.
2012 scores for 7th grade math - dropped 11%
points from 2010, before the SIG funds were available.
6.
2012 scores for 8th grade reading - dropped 14%
points from 2010, before the SIG funds were available.
Reading
|
6
|
0
|
26
|
37
|
24
|
33
|
96%
|
Writing
|
6
|
0
|
22
|
26
|
24
|
19
|
96%
|
Math
|
6
|
0
|
23
|
31
|
29
|
26
|
96%
|
Reading
|
7
|
27
|
31
|
38
|
27
|
32
|
96%
|
Writing
|
7
|
29
|
24
|
24
|
32
|
16
|
96%
|
Math
|
7
|
14
|
21
|
25
|
27
|
16
|
96%
|
Reading
|
8
|
23
|
32
|
37
|
24
|
30
|
96%
|
Writing
|
8
|
19
|
19
|
17
|
11
|
18
|
96%
|
Math
|
8
|
14
|
23
|
20
|
10
|
11
|
96%
|
Science
|
8
|
9
|
16
|
14
|
7
|
7
|
GILPIN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1.
5th grade science score improved 1% - from
5% proficient in 2011 to 6% proficient in 2012.
2.
5th grade writing score improved from 20%
proficient in 2011 to 24% proficient in 2012.
3.
Scores declined in all other categories from 2011 to
2012.
4.
2012 scores for 4th grade math – 0%
proficient (or so we read), down from 24% proficient in 2011.
5.
2012 scores for 4th grade reading – 6%
proficient, down from 18% proficient in 2011.
6.
2012 scores for 5th grade math – 12%
proficient, down from 30% proficient in 2011.
Reading
|
3
|
46
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
84%
|
Writing
|
3
|
27
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
84%
|
Math
|
3
|
33
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
84%
|
Reading
|
4
|
6
|
18
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
84%
|
Writing
|
4
|
6
|
12
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
84%
|
Math
|
4
|
0
|
24
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
84%
|
Writing
|
5
|
24
|
20
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
84%
|
Math
|
5
|
12
|
30
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
84%
|
Science
|
5
|
6
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
84%
|
Reading
|
5
|
29
|
35
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
84%
|
GREENLEE
ELEMENTARY
1.
Overall, mixed results: 5 categories up from 2011, 5
down.
2.
3rd grade - Strong improvement in 2012 TCAP
scores compared to 2011.
3.
All 4th grade scores declined in 2012 from
2011.
Writing scores declined 16% points to 9% proficient in 2012
from 25% proficient in 2011.
Math scores declined 23% points to 20% proficient in 2012
from 43% proficient in 2011.
4.
5th grade reading scores improved in 2012 to
33% proficient compared to 29% in 2011.
5.
5th grade science scores improved in 2012 to
9% proficient compared to only 2% proficient in 2011
6.
5th grade writing and math scores declined
in 2012 from 2011 by 5-6% points.
Reading
|
3
|
55
|
34
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
95%
|
Writing
|
3
|
23
|
16
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
95%
|
Math
|
3
|
40
|
28
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
95%
|
Reading
|
4
|
23
|
28
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
95%
|
Writing
|
4
|
9
|
25
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
95%
|
Math
|
4
|
20
|
43
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
95%
|
Reading
|
5
|
33
|
29
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
95%
|
Writing
|
5
|
24
|
31
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
95%
|
Math
|
5
|
30
|
35
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
95%
|
Science
|
5
|
9
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
95%
|
LAKE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
Sixth grade reading scores slightly better, writing scores
the same, math scores declined.
Reading
|
6
|
40
|
36
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
97%
|
Writing
|
6
|
32
|
32
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
97%
|
Math
|
6
|
40
|
46
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
97%
|
Reading
|
7
|
36
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
97%
|
Writing
|
7
|
32
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
97%
|
Math
|
7
|
20
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
97%
|
LAKE MIDDLE SCHOOL
1. Writing
scores for 8th graders went up from 22% proficient in 2011 to 23%
proficient in 2012—both improvements on 2010 score of 17% proficient, before
the SIG funds were available.
2. 2012
8th reading, science and math scores all lower than 2011 and 2010
The drop in reading scores is the most troubling: 2012 8th
grade reading scores dropped 11% points - from 37% proficient in both 2010 and 2011
– to 26% proficient in 2012.
Reading
|
7
|
0
|
32
|
34
|
22
|
25
|
96%
|
Writing
|
7
|
0
|
25
|
16
|
21
|
15
|
96%
|
Math
|
7
|
0
|
19
|
14
|
14
|
10
|
96%
|
Reading
|
8
|
26
|
37
|
37
|
27
|
21
|
96%
|
Writing
|
8
|
23
|
22
|
17
|
19
|
11
|
96%
|
Science
|
8
|
7
|
17
|
9
|
10
|
8
|
96%
|
Math
|
8
|
18
|
27
|
19
|
17
|
10
|
96
|
NORTH HIGH SCHOOL
North’s
scores—though better, especially in reading—still fall well short of its stated
goals for 2012 back in the SIG application, which read:
Grade
|
Subject
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
2011 Goal
|
2012 Goal
|
9th
|
Reading
|
21.5
|
24.5
|
21.5
|
35
|
45
|
Math
|
7
|
5
|
6
|
30
|
35
|
|
Writing
|
15
|
10
|
11
|
40
|
55
|
|
10th
|
Reading
|
22.5
|
21
|
34
|
55
|
60
|
Math
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
30
|
35
|
|
Writing
|
12
|
13
|
16.5
|
30
|
40
|
We
can now look at the results for these first two years:
Grade
|
Subject
|
2011 Goal
|
2011 Results
|
2012 Goal
|
2012 Results
|
9th
|
Reading
|
35
|
33
|
45
|
40
|
Math
|
20
|
12
|
30
|
10
|
|
Writing
|
30
|
19
|
40
|
19
|
|
10th
|
Reading
|
45
|
31
|
55
|
48
|
Math
|
20
|
6
|
30
|
10
|
|
Writing
|
30
|
9
|
40
|
29
|
A close look at
North’s scores reveal:
1. Improvement in most all categories in 2012 from 2011—and
improved scores in 5 of 7 categories from 2011.
All 2012 scores were improved from 2010, before the SIG funds were made
available.
2. Reading - Especially significant improvement in reading:
40% of 9th graders were proficient in 2012 compared to 33% in 2011
and 29% in 2010.
3. Reading - 48% of 10 graders were proficient in 2012 compared
to 31% in 2011 and 29% in 2010.
4. Math - Math scores have edged up somewhat from 2010. But in both grades 9 and 10 still only 10% of
the students score proficient.
Math
|
9
|
10
|
12
|
9
|
6
|
5
|
84%
|
|
Reading
|
9
|
40
|
33
|
29
|
22
|
25
|
84%
|
|
Writing
|
9
|
19
|
19
|
11
|
11
|
10
|
84%
|
|
Science
|
10
|
22
|
11
|
13
|
15
|
12
|
84%
|
|
Reading
|
10
|
48
|
31
|
29
|
34
|
21
|
84%
|
|
Writing
|
10
|
29
|
9
|
11
|
17
|
13
|
84%
|
|
Math
|
10
|
10
|
6
|
7
|
3
|
6
|
84%
|
|
PUEBLO CITY 60 – Academic Growth at 5
SIG Schools
After each of four middle school in Pueblo 60 received roughly
$700,000 in year one and $700,000 in year two towards its
turnaround/transformation, none had growth scores over 37 percentile points in
2012. I hope that after two years in a
row like this CDE or the federal government will be compelled to halt the
school district’s contract with Global Partnership Schools and rethink this
entire effort.
If not, imagine the prospects for that 6th grade girl who arrived
at one of these middle schools in the fall of 2010, and who now begins her 8th
grade year. I hope she has had some
terrific teachers and at least a few good classes. But who can doubt that, after all the hype
about the dramatic improvement that would take place, we have let her down?
FREED MIDDLE SCHOOL
READING
|
Middle
|
31.0
|
43.0
|
23.3%
|
55.7%
|
MATH
|
Middle
|
21.0
|
78.0
|
0.0%
|
16.4%
|
WRITING
|
Middle
|
29.0
|
68.0
|
14.3%
|
32.6%
|
LEMUEL PITTS MIDDLE
READING
|
Middle
|
33.5
|
44.0
|
22.2%
|
61.1%
|
MATH
|
Middle
|
20.0
|
81.0
|
3.1%
|
18.6%
|
WRITING
|
Middle
|
27.0
|
65.0
|
7.8%
|
30.5%
|
JAMES RISLEY MIDDLE
READING
|
Middle
|
37.0
|
54.0
|
25.3%
|
55.7%
|
MATH
|
Middle
|
18.0
|
90.0
|
2.7%
|
12.0%
|
WRITING
|
Middle
|
36.0
|
75.0
|
13.6%
|
36.2%
|
RONCALLI MIDDLE
READING
|
Middle
|
30.0
|
41.0
|
23.9%
|
55.0%
|
MATH
|
Middle
|
13.0
|
74.0
|
4.3%
|
8.5%
|
WRITING
|
Middle
|
29.0
|
64.0
|
9.4%
|
41.9%
|
The
one positive story on growth in Pueblo was at Central High, where in two of
three academic disciplines, reading and writing, growth exceeded 50%.
CENTRAL HIGH
SCHOOL
READING
|
High
|
53.0
|
41.0
|
31.5%
|
89.4%
|
MATH
|
High
|
37.5
|
99.0
|
0.7%
|
42.4%
|
WRITING
|
High
|
56.0
|
79.0
|
15.8%
|
70.9%
|
YOUTH & FAMILY ACADEMY
CHARTER
During this past school year Pueblo 60 cut off the SIG funds
for Youth & Family Academy. YAFA,
now authorized by the Charter School Institute, had 2012 growth scores better
than all four middle schools that continued to receive the large federal
funds. I imagine some YAFA teachers
might say there are times when it is more a blessing than a curse NOT to be
involved in a federal grant.
**
Contact hitter
If you read this far, no, I don’t think it was a futile
swing. As a baseball player I lacked power, but I didn’t strike out much. Contact hitter. Thank you for reading this.
No comments:
Post a Comment