August 5, 2011
It got our attention: Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan
“Announces $3.5 Billion in Title I School Improvement Grants to Fund
Transformational Changes Where Children Have Long Been Undeserved” (August,
2009). When we learned a year ago that
over $37 million of that would come to 16 of Colorado’s lowest-achieving
schools, over three years, to help raise student achievement, we again took
note. Another year has now passed. How’s
that going? Any positive news for those “underserved” kids?
One assumes the federal government is interested in
seeing that the grants to Colorado, especially to Denver Public Schools and
Pueblo City Schools, the two districts receiving most of these funds, $14.8 and $12.9 million respectively over three
years to turnaround six schools in each city, will be well used.
One assumes the Colorado Department of Education is
taking a careful look at how well year one funds, totaling over $10 million to
our 16 struggling schools, have been used.
One assumes DPS (about $4.6 million this first year) and
Pueblo 60 (over $4.2 million), especially, are taking a close look at how these
funds have been spent and how well improvement efforts are going.
One assumes they are looking at a variety of measurements
to gauge effectiveness and success. For
we all agree that in the complex effort to turn around or transform a low-performing
school into a good place for students to learn and grow, there are many factors
and variables to consider.
However, one also assumes that CSAP data, while just one
of the many measurements, is considered an important piece of the puzzle. So here are the 2011 CSAP achievement results—the
percentage proficient and advanced—compared to the previous two years, and
compared to the goals set by the schools (and/or districts) when they applied
for the turnaround or transformation funds (these goals are found at http://www.cde.state.co.us/turnaround). Most folks will want to see growth scores
too, and I am sure the state and districts will examine those. But as I have written (Another View #61), let’s be careful not to exaggerate those 55%
growth scores as great news. The
goal—yes?—is still proficiency.
Last winter a mid-year check on this effort from Public
Impact included a warning: “Decades of research and experience in public education
have shown that improvement efforts that focus on incremental improvements –
such as curriculum changes, increased funding and professional
development—rarely produce compelling success in schools that struggle to meet
students’ needs year after year… CDE and other state leaders can help foster … dramatic
efforts … by engaging in a focused and rigorous review process for schools’
improvement plans in future years, and closely examining each district’s
commitment to success” (http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/dl/ti_sitig_schturnarounds.pdf).
This is anything but that “rigorous review.” It is perhaps an unsatisfactory but I hope
useful first draft at what CDE, and both DPS and Pueblo 60, can do far more
skillfully to see if this grant is proving effective.
And given how vital it is that we do this right, when
results fall so short of our goals, we trust there are people asking a number
of hard questions. At a minimum, that is my purpose. 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? Advocates for
these “underserved” students who demand that we not spend another dime until we
re-evaluate how to use these funds to truly “transform” these schools.
See the last two pages for NOTES—commitments,
comments, and caveats. I have tried to
be careful with the data, and apologize in advance for mistakes in copying
goals and scores from the CDE web site, or in my own math. If you send corrections I will email a new
version which highlights where I have updated the numbers.
DENVER
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Gilpin Elementary (was K-8 in
2009-10)—Now Gilpin Montessori School - Proficient & Advanced
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal &
results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
3
|
32
|
32
|
45
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
23
|
30
|
35
|
18
|
-17
|
-12
|
|
|
5
|
15
|
39*
|
30*
|
35
|
+5
|
-4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
3
|
11
|
10
|
30
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
17
|
11
|
30
|
12
|
-18
|
+1
|
|
|
5
|
15
|
36*
|
35*
|
20
|
-15
|
-16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
3
|
16
|
17
|
35
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
29
|
41*
|
36*
|
24
|
-12
|
-17
|
|
|
5
|
5
|
29*
|
30
|
30
|
same
|
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
5
|
0
|
7
|
|
5
|
|
-2
|
*Worth noting: 2011 goals were written before 2010
results were available. They were ambitious based on 2009 scores.
X Insufficient
number of students to be scored.
Greenlee Elementary (was K-8 in 2009-10) - Proficient
& Advanced
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal & results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
3
|
46
|
42
|
58
|
34
|
-24
|
-8
|
|
|
4
|
29
|
26
|
46
|
28
|
-18
|
+2
|
|
|
5
|
33
|
24
|
45
|
29
|
-16
|
+5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
3
|
28
|
29
|
38
|
16
|
-22
|
-13
|
|
|
4
|
18
|
17
|
34
|
25
|
-9
|
+8
|
|
|
5
|
24
|
18
|
30
|
31
|
+1
|
+13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
3
|
75*
|
47
|
80
|
28
|
-52
|
-19
|
|
|
4
|
29
|
38
|
48
|
43
|
-5
|
+5
|
|
|
5
|
22
|
19
|
30
|
35
|
+5
|
+16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
5
|
9
|
3
|
|
2
|
|
-1
|
*2009 score, which may explain the 80% 2011 target. But see 4th
grade score in 2010. Just half (38/75)
still proficient.
Lake Middle School (6-8)**–
Proficient & Advanced
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal &
results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
6
|
28
|
38*
|
44
|
36
|
-8
|
-2
|
|
|
7
|
22
|
34*
|
38
|
32
|
-6
|
-2
|
|
|
8
|
27
|
37*
|
40
|
37
|
-3
|
same
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
6
|
20
|
24
|
32
|
32
|
same
|
+8
|
|
|
7
|
21.5
|
16
|
32
|
25
|
-7
|
+9
|
|
|
8
|
19
|
17
|
30
|
22
|
-8
|
+5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
6
|
20
|
33*
|
32
|
46
|
+14
|
+13
|
|
|
7
|
14
|
14
|
30
|
19
|
-11
|
+5
|
|
|
8
|
17
|
19
|
30
|
27
|
-3
|
+8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
8
|
10
|
9
|
|
17
|
|
+8
|
*Worth noting: 2011 goals were written before 2010
results were available. They were ambitious based on 2009 scores.
**Lake
began a new International School for 6th graders this past year;
most 7th and 8th graders continued their previous
program. The building also was home for a new charter school using the West
Denver Prep model.
Rachel Noel Middle School –
Proficient & Advanced
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal &
results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
6
|
24
|
37
|
45
|
26
|
-19
|
-11
|
|
|
7
|
27
|
38
|
45
|
31
|
-14
|
-7
|
|
|
8
|
24
|
37
|
40
|
32
|
-8
|
-5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
6
|
24
|
26
|
45
|
22
|
-23
|
-4
|
|
|
7
|
32
|
24
|
45
|
24
|
-21
|
same
|
|
|
8
|
11
|
17
|
30
|
19
|
-11
|
+2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
6
|
29
|
31
|
45
|
23
|
-22
|
-8
|
|
|
7
|
27
|
25
|
40
|
21
|
-19
|
-4
|
|
|
8
|
10
|
20
|
30
|
23
|
-7
|
+3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
8
|
7
|
14
|
|
16
|
|
+2
|
Montbello High School
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal &
results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
9
|
30
|
25
|
45
|
28
|
-17
|
+3
|
|
|
10
|
35
|
31
|
45
|
18
|
-27
|
-13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
9
|
15
|
6
|
30
|
14
|
-16
|
+8
|
|
|
10
|
15
|
11
|
30
|
6
|
-24
|
-5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
9
|
6
|
6
|
20
|
9
|
-11
|
+3
|
|
|
10
|
4
|
7
|
20
|
5
|
-15
|
-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
10
|
8
|
10
|
|
5
|
|
-5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACT
|
11
|
14.7
|
15
|
15.7
|
|
|
|
North High School
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal &
results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
9
|
22
|
29
|
35
|
33
|
-2
|
+4
|
|
|
10
|
34
|
29
|
45
|
31
|
-14
|
+2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
9
|
11
|
11
|
30
|
19
|
-11
|
+8
|
|
|
10
|
17
|
11
|
30
|
9
|
-21
|
-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
9
|
6
|
9
|
20
|
12
|
-8
|
+3
|
|
|
10
|
3
|
7
|
20
|
6
|
-14
|
-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
10
|
15
|
13
|
|
11
|
|
-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACT
|
11
|
15
|
15
|
16
|
|
|
|
PUEBLO CITY SCHOOLS
Freed Middle School - Proficient
& Advanced
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal &
results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
6
|
44
|
57*
|
53.6*
|
47
|
-6.6
|
-10
|
|
|
7
|
51
|
45
|
60.8
|
45
|
-15.8
|
same
|
|
|
8
|
44
|
51
|
68
|
34
|
-34
|
-17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
6
|
31
|
28
|
|
31
|
|
+3
|
|
|
7
|
38
|
30
|
|
36
|
|
+6
|
|
|
8
|
31
|
35
|
|
26
|
|
-9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
6
|
32
|
28
|
46.1
|
37
|
-9.1
|
+9
|
|
|
7
|
27
|
15
|
40.3
|
23
|
-17.3
|
+8
|
|
|
8
|
16
|
28
|
49.4
|
20
|
-29.4
|
-8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
8
|
18
|
25
|
|
14
|
|
-9
|
*Worth noting: 2011 goals were written before 2010
results were available. They were ambitious based on 2009 scores.
Pitts Middle School - Proficient & Advanced
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal &
results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
6
|
54
|
53
|
53.4
|
45
|
-8.4
|
-8
|
|
|
7
|
38
|
43
|
60.7
|
40
|
-20.7
|
-3
|
|
|
8
|
47
|
46
|
68
|
40
|
-28
|
-6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
6
|
36
|
23
|
|
36
|
|
+13
|
|
|
7
|
30
|
26
|
|
36
|
|
+10
|
|
|
8
|
31
|
33
|
|
26
|
|
-7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
6
|
29
|
34
|
44.3
|
28
|
-16.3
|
-6
|
|
|
7
|
18
|
12
|
34.3
|
21
|
-13.3
|
+9
|
|
|
8
|
22
|
16
|
35.3
|
16
|
-19.3
|
same
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
8
|
27
|
23
|
|
16
|
|
-7
|
Risley Middle School - Proficient & Advanced
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal &
results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
6
|
48
|
39
|
69.9
|
31
|
-38.9
|
-8
|
|
|
7
|
39.5
|
42
|
65.4
|
38
|
-27.4
|
-4
|
|
|
8
|
33
|
40.5
|
63.3
|
32
|
-31.3
|
-8.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
6
|
35
|
23.5
|
|
25
|
|
+1.5
|
|
|
7
|
31
|
25
|
|
27
|
|
+2
|
|
|
8
|
20
|
27
|
|
25
|
|
-2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
6
|
26
|
19
|
39.6
|
17
|
-22.6
|
-2
|
|
|
7
|
12.5
|
11.5
|
30.6
|
14
|
-16.6
|
+2.5
|
|
|
8
|
13
|
10
|
29.3
|
12
|
-17.3
|
+2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
8
|
17
|
8.5
|
|
20
|
|
+11.5
|
Roncalli Middle School - Proficient
& Advanced
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal & results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
6
|
53
|
57
|
63.5
|
54
|
-9.5
|
-3
|
|
|
7
|
58
|
49
|
64.9
|
51
|
-13.9
|
+2
|
|
|
8
|
52
|
65*
|
60.1*
|
41
|
-19.1
|
-24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
6
|
36
|
42
|
|
42
|
|
same
|
|
|
7
|
54
|
34
|
|
43
|
|
+9
|
|
|
8
|
41
|
50
|
|
32
|
|
-18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
6
|
38
|
46
|
50.6
|
57
|
+6.4
|
+11
|
|
|
7
|
37
|
20
|
46.7
|
33
|
-13.7
|
+13
|
|
|
8
|
33
|
33
|
42.3
|
21
|
-21.3
|
-12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
8
|
28
|
30
|
|
20
|
|
-10
|
*Worth
noting: 2011 goals were written before 2010 results were available. They were
ambitious based on 2009 scores.
Central High School - Proficient
& Advanced
|
|
Grade
|
2009
|
2010
|
GOAL for 2011
|
RESULTS 2011
|
GAP Between 2011 goal &
results
|
2010 to 2011 Change
|
|
READING
|
9
|
45.5
|
49
|
56
|
47
|
-9
|
-2
|
|
|
10
|
51
|
42
|
60
|
46
|
-14
|
+4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRITING
|
9
|
28
|
31
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
26
|
24.5
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MATH
|
9
|
6
|
12
|
18.7
|
8
|
-10.7
|
-4
|
|
|
10
|
4
|
5
|
15.3
|
7
|
-8.3
|
+2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCIENCE
|
10
|
20
|
18
|
|
18
|
|
same
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACT
|
11
|
17
|
14.5
|
|
|
|
|
Youth and Family
Services was the sixth Pueblo school included in the grant and in the
funding, but achievement goals were not included in Pueblo’s application to
CDE.
The Pueblo
schools did not include specific goals
for writing. In its application to
CDE for the Tiered Intervention Grant in April of 2010, the Pueblo City School’s
narrative gave 62% proficiency as its overall target for 2012. Its “ambitious schedule of improvement” stated
that writing scores would climb by 13 points in 2010, by 12 points in 2011, and
by 10 points in 2012 (p. 43). As evident
above, writing scores at these five Pueblo schools remained largely unchanged between
2009 and 2011.
Neither DPS nor Pueblo schools included goals for science. But it seems worth including
here, and to wonder, sadly, why in so many of these schools low science scores in
2010 declined further in 2011.
**
NOTES
1.
In applying for the federal funds, each school
district had its school board president and superintendent sign on to a
Certification and Assurance Form. Part
of that document reads:
"…school districts that accept 1003(g) School Improvement funding for
the Tiered Intervention grant agree to the following assurances:
"To provide the
Colorado Department of Education such information as may be required to
determine
if the grantee is
making satisfactory progress toward achieving the goals of the grant….
“To monitor and evaluate the
impact of all Turnaround interventions.
"To submit to CDE
an Improvement Plan for each identified school updated annually as a requirement for securing the continued funding from year
to year during the three-year term of this grant.”
2.
The Denver Public Schools’ proposal to the
Colorado Department of Education in April of 2010 (http://www.cde.state.co.us/turnaround/downloads/DPSFullApplication.pdf),
seeking funds from the Tiered Intervention Grant, stated:
“The Office of School Turnaround will ensure
that the schools are implementing their plans with fidelity, will monitor whether the proposed
interventions are, in fact, resulting in improvement, and will course correct if the monitoring provides
evidence of lack of fidelity or impact” (p. 14).
Under “A Plan for Dramatic Improvement” for each school, DPS also wrote the
following in its section on “Evaluation Plan: Interim Target Goals,” where it
gave a few estimated goals for 2011, 2012, and 2013, the three years the grant is
to be in effect:
“According to the RFP the turnaround school will be judged successful
in the turnaround efforts when the students it serves are performing at levels
comparable to students’ average performance in low-poverty schools across the
state. Schools will be required to meet
achievement levels in the core academic subjects that equal or exceed the
average level for the state’s non-low-income students”
(p. 20-Greenlee; p. 40- Lake, p.
64-Gilpin, etc.).
3.
Pueblo 60’s application to CDE included this
assertion:
“Successful intervention
programs require progress monitoring.
PCS will monitor progress toward the goals and objectives with both
formative and summative assessments” (p. 12).
4.
Caveat #1
- Thoughtful observers of school change, like Michael Fullan, believe that
“implementation dip” is no myth, that as schools begin major reforms, results
often suffer. One must ask, however,
after years of poor results, how can a school use $500,000 or more and produce
results that are little better? In contrast, please consider the scores for new
schools modeled on West Denver Prep and Denver School of Science Technology.
Any big implementation dips there?
Caveat #2 – Some might look at the goals for improvement and say
the schools felt compelled to set unrealistically high targets in order to be
considered eligible for the grant. True?
Worth exploring. Of course we want significant change and
improvement. But “phony goals” do no one
any good.
5.
As it was not until November 2010 that the plan
for Denver’s Far Northeast community was written, and then approved by the
Denver school board, it is unclear to what extent the $3,388,350 committed to
Montebello High and $2,776,580 to Noel Middle over three years was spent during
the 2010-11 school year. (It is also not
clear why these two schools were awarded over $5 million when their
restructuring plans were months away from being articulated.) DPS will no doubt track exactly what portion
of the federal grant was spent by these schools year one, and how well those
funds were used. But as CDE included the two schools in its grant a year ago,
they are included here.
6.
Finally, from the Don’t-you-think-we-could-have-seen-this-coming? department:
After Denver approved of the
turnaround plans for West High School, Paul Teske, dean
of the School of Public Policy at the University of Colorado in Denver, spoke
of the “skepticism in the educational community about the success of
district-sponsored turnarounds such as that contemplated at West. ‘Around the
country,’ he told Education News Colorado, ‘there are very few examples of a
turnaround that is less than shutting it down and essentially starting a new
school that has been shown to work.’
He’s backed up by a 2008 Center on Education Policy study that
investigated school restructurings in five states and found that only 19
percent of the schools made adequate yearly progress based on 2006-07 tests”
(“DPS’ West High next up for makeover,” June 29, 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment