Sunday, January 3, 2016

AV#92 - Why not a regional recovery school district?

.                                                                                                        January 1, 2013

Regional economic development works. Why not a regional recovery school district?

  How’s this for a New Year’s Resolution?    
In 2013 Coloradans will make a determined effort to begin to turn around our lowest-performing high schools.
School districts in the metro Denver area struggle with the same issue: what to do about their lowest-performing high schools.  They might take a lesson from the Metro Denver Economic Development Corpor- ation (Metro Denver EDC) and its CEO, Tom Clark. 

Steve Raabe’s profile of Clark, named the Denver Post Business Person of the Year, stated that he “has been a key player in virtually every major business relocation and expansion along the Front Range” since 1985 (The Denver Post, Dec 23, 2012).

Before the Greater Denver Corp was created in the 1980s, Clark said “the economic development model was fight like hell, and stab the other guy in the back.” Today, according to Metro Denver EDC’s web site: “… we've found that, in business development as in business itself, collaboration and teamwork pays off.” It claims to be “the nation’s first and only truly regional economic development entity in which many area economic development groups have joined together to represent, and further, the interests of an entire region.”

In public education—inside Clark’s “territory,” the seven counties in the Metro Denver area—we find at least 15 of the state’s lowest-performing high schools (see pages 3 and 4).  Anyone concerned about these schools must wonder if we could use someone like Clark, and such a collaborative effort among all partners, to tackle a problem shared by so many urban school districts.

Regional cooperation for the benefit of all.  A no-brainer, wouldn’t you agree?

Our local schools districts do not “fight like hell” with each other, although competition for grants like Race to the Top might ruffle a few feathers.  But I believe many districts will confess: partnerships and sharing are unusual.  Each its own silo, its own fiefdom.  We applaud when local mayors work together, but we seldom see neighboring superintendents do the same.  Unfortunate, to say the least, especially when they share common problems—like high-poverty high schools with low graduation rates (for several schools below 60%--see page 4) and a majority of those who do graduate not ready for college (often over 70% of the school’s graduates require remedial courses before taking college level classes).

The pages that follow present two different snapshots of more than a dozen low-performing high schools in the seven counties of the Metro Denver EDC.  Most face similar challenges.  There is little evidence over the past twenty years that our school districts have found ways to turn around these schools.  In the early 1990’s I worked for a foundation supporting restructuring at 10 Colorado high schools.  I had much to learn about how difficult it can be to fundamentally change a high school. 

Twenty years later, watching reform after restructuring after redesign, I am skeptical of anyone who “has the solution,” and I would guess that by now many metro-area school districts are equally cynical.  Humbled by their experiences, frustrated by the lack of improvement in so many high schools, many urban districts can acknowledge: “We do not have the answer—and/or maybe the personnel or resources to address this problem.”  Which only makes giving up some control, and putting as many heads together as possible —creating a regional effort—appealing. A new “district” focused solely on dramatic improvement for these high school students.

               Conference on reforming high schools  
Please look for the announcement from A Plus Denver about a gathering this winter “for school heads, district leaders, CMOs and national thought leaders to talk about how we can make and sustain real changes in the classroom” in our high schools. An event consistent with a regional recovery district; a chance to work together, to pool our resources, to meet this challenge.

We borrow this idea from other states that have developed such “recovery districts.”  It is one of the options discussed by a School Turnaround Study Group (STSG) I have joined. (As is always the case, the opinions expressed in Another View are my own and are not intended to represent the views of the STSG or any organization I am associated with).  

These “recovery districts” focus on turning around schools judged to be in the “persistently lowest achieving” status.  Louisiana’s Recovery School District (LA RSD) has the best story to tell.  Most new efforts wisely limit the number of schools in which to intervene: Michigan’s Education Achievement System (EAS) works with 13 Detroit schools; Indiana’s state superintendent brought in external operators for seven schools; the Tennessee Achievement School District is tackling five Memphis schools.  

Would a “recovery school district” for, say, 10 high schools in the Denver metro area, a regional collaborative effort with one purpose, make sense?  I believe it is an option we should explore.

SB 163 – The clock is ticking towards some kind of dramatic intervention.  Why wait?

State law adds urgency to such a look: SB 163, the 2009 Educational Accountability Act, means many schools now face a deadline.  CDE’s 2012 School Performance Framework puts over 30 Colorado high schools programs in the two lowest accreditation categories, Priority Improvement or Turnaround.  In the metro area, Adams City High, Aurora Central High, and Westminster High have been so ranked for three straight years. Several other local schools have been placed in these categories two out of the last three years.  According to EdNews Colorado (“School ratings inch up a bit,” Todd Engdahl, Dec. 5, 2012):

Schools that remain at the priority improvement or turnaround levels for five consecutive years are subject to closure, conversion or other significant change. Here are the numbers of schools that are on the five-year clock, starting July 1, 2013:
70 schools are in year one
61 schools are in year two
60 schools are in year three
Noting that the five-year clock is ticking, board chair Bob Schaffer, R-4th District, asked, “Do we have some method of trying to play this out?” He was referring to schools that may not be able to improve their ratings enough to avoid conversion, closure or other changes.

While SB 163 does not require dramatic intervention by the state before the fifth year of chronic low performance, it does allow the state to act sooner.  Which seems only right.  Imagine 8th graders at Aurora’s North Middle School in 2009-2010. They learn that the high school they will enter is on Priority Improvement that year; they might then spend their entire high school years at Aurora Central—through 2014--as it stays on Priority Improvement, or worse, with no action, no consequences for the lack of progress.  Our conscience protests; those students deserve better.  As soon as possible.

But just because SB 163 allows for significant intervention, will the state have the courage, or the capacity, to act boldly? 

A recent draft of a report on turnarounds from the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado at Denver (the final draft will be presented this winter to the Colorado State Board of Education), asks a key question:

How should low-performing schools and districts be prioritized for assistance and interventions?  S.B. 163 mandates certain dramatic interventions for schools and districts with Turnaround plans and for districts facing loss of accreditation.  Currently, 40 schools and four districts have been assigned Turnaround plans.  How will the system manage its “caseload?”

Good question. One more reason why “the system” might do well to consider a Recovery District for 5-10 high schools in the metro area. 

What schools would be good candidates for such an effort?  Another View #88 focused on Aurora Central High (“The case for state intervention,” Sept. 18, 2012), but also mentioned Adams City and Sheridan. Here are 15 high schools. If 5-10 of these face so many similar challenges, what if …?  


1.       CDE’s School Performance Framework –
High schools in metro Denver on Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plans

The first presentation is from the Colorado Department of Education’s School Performance Framework for 2012, listing local high schools whose score (points earned) placed them in an accreditation category of Priority Improvement (second lowest category) or Turnaround (lowest category).

My list does not include on-line schools, K-12 schools, or alternative education campuses.  Each school here has a high percentage of students on free and reduced lunch (from 69.4% at Mapleton Expeditionary School of the Arts to 97.6% at Bruce Randolph).  Only Southwest Early College is small (295 students enrolled). The others have at least 500 students; Aurora Central (2,291) and Westminster High (2,366) are the two largest schools in this group.

District
School
Final Accreditation Category
Final % Points Earned

Entering Year on Priority Improvement or Turnaround

2010
2011
2012
2012

Adams County 14
Adams City High School
Turnaround Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
35.9
Year 3
Aurora Public Schools
Aurora Central H.S.
Priority Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
41.6
Year 2



Denver
Public
Schools
Bruce Randolph (6-12)
Improvement Plan
Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
57.9
Year 1
Montbello H.S.*
Turnaround Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
Turnaround Plan
40.8
Year 3
Southwest Early College
Improvement Plan
Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
50
Year 1
West H.S.*
Priority Improvement Plan
Turnaround Plan
Turnaround Plan
43.1
Year 3
Jefferson County
Jefferson H.S.
Priority Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
45
Year 1
Mapleton
Mapleton Expeditionary Sch. of the Arts (7-12)
Improvement Plan
Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
45.8
Year 1
Sheridan
Sheridan H.S.
Priority Improvement Plan
Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
45.5
Year 1
Westminster 50
Westminster H.S.
Priority Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
Priority Improvement Plan
43.2
Year 3
*NOTE: The federal School Improvement Grant is supporting the three-year turnaround of Montbello (nearly $3.4 million) and West (over $1.1 million), and DPS seems committed to redesign these two schools.  As a result, these two would need less attention inside a regional recovery district. On the other hand, the lessons being learned in Denver’s efforts might prove of great value to such a “district.”

2.  ColoradoSchoolGrades.com – High Schools in Metro Denver scoring D or below


From 2 years ago - Another View #76 -  March 4, 2011
No one likes to get an F, but we should take it to heart and see how we can improve.  That’s certainly what we will be saying to schools if Colorado starts giving them letter grades—as many states are doing.  That is certainly what we would ask of a teacher—or a student—given such a low evaluation.  Unless we want to shoot the messenger, failing grades should force a little soul-searching.
While ColoradoSchoolGrades.com uses much of the same state data as CDE in its rankings, it gives grades, not a percentage of points earned towards accreditation.  This time—removing Montbello (ranked #315 by ColoradoSchoolGrades.com) and West (ranked #319) as two “F” schools already undergoing significant restructuring, and not adding Denver’s North High (which earned a “D,” ranking #293) for the same reason—the list of low-achieving schools is slightly different.  Again, all of these schools have a high percentage of students from low-income families, and again—save for Southwest Early College and Mapleton Expeditionary—each has over 500 high school students.

District
School
Overall grade
Ranking (out of 327 high schools)
Overall Academic Proficiency
Academic Proficiency in:
Overall Academic Growth
Graduation rate
% low income
Reading
Math
English
Science
Adams County 14
Adams City High School
F
324
F
F
D-
F
F
F
63%
81%
Aurora Public Schools
Aurora Central H.S.
F
318
F
F
D
F
F
C
43%
71%
Gateway H.S.
D-
308
D
D
D
D
D
C+
56%
57%
Hinkley H.S.
D
288
D+
D
C
D
C-
C
58%
69%
Denver Public Schools
Manual H.S.
D
305
F
F
D
F
F
C
65%
92%
Southwest Early College
D
293
D
D
D
D-
D-
C
42%
79%
Englewood
Englewood H.S.
D
293
D+
D
C-
D+
D+
D
71%
44%
Jefferson County
Alameda International H.S.
D
288
D
D
D
D-
D
C-
74%
76%
Jefferson H.S.
F
313
F
F
F
F
F
C
62%
87%
Sheridan
Sheridan H.S.
D-
310
D-
D-
D
D-
D
C
41%
71%
Westmin-ster 50
Westminster H.S.
F
315
F
D-
F
F
D-
C-
72%
77%


No comments:

Post a Comment