Monday, June 15, 2026

AV #302 - On our 250th - A talk for students (grade 5-10) on the Gettysburg Address

“Four score and seven years ago …”

What a perfect time for students to see how President Abraham Lincoln looked back, as America is doing this year, to 1776!

Why he did so is worth exploring.

AV#302 is part of a talk/slideshow I have given to

several schools on the Gettysburg Address. This

version is designed for 8^th graders.

My full slideshow has three parts.

1. A look at one participant on the Battle of Gettysburg, my great-grandfather’s brother, Colonel Henry S. Huidekoper, who lost an arm on July 1, 1863. Forty years later he received the Congressional Medal of Honor.

2. A study of the speech, built on the essay by Garry Wills, “The Words that Remade America.”

3. An appreciation of Lincoln’s language, highlighting several rhetorical devices in the speech. This part is optional. Where students have begun to study personification, parallel structure, alliteration, etc., it can enrich their understanding of what makes the speech so effective.

This is part 2.

“The Words that Remade America.”

After the three-day Battle of Gettysburg, thousands of bodies need a proper burial. Acres of land are donated and purchased to create what eventually becomes the Gettysburg National Cemetery. That fall of 1863 the North agrees to create an event to honor the war dead. Although many are buried between July and November, when President Lincoln arrives to give his speech, on Nov. 19, 1863, many bodies have yet to be properly interred.

President Lincoln is not the main speaker at this occasion, but he is invited to make a few remarks. His speech is all of 272 words. It lasts just three minutes or so. Why is it known as one the most important speeches in the history of our country?

In 1992 the author Garry Wills argued in his essay titled, “The Words that Remade America,” that President Lincoln came to Gettysburg eager to articulate a larger moral purpose for this bloody civil war.

However, that November of 1863, our President could not point to the Constitution of the United States to give the north, and all who wanted to end slavery, a greater rallying cry than simply to preserve the union.

Why not?

Let’s remember what the Constitution said – in 1863.

Constitution of the United States

Article I – Legislature

Section II – Representation to the House based on population:

“whole number of free persons … three-fifths of all other persons” (slaves)

The words in Article I of the Constitution, as written and signed in 1787, show the number of legislators elected to the House of Representatives in each state was based on a tally of the people that counted slaves as 3/5 of a human being. The Constitution allowed slavery to continue. According to the law, at that time, African-American slaves were treated as less than unequal. They had NO RIGHTS AT ALL.

While the movement to abolish slavery had grown stronger in the northern states in the 1840’s and 1850’s, the country as a whole was not ready to challenge Article I.

In fact, in 1857, the U. S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision confirmed, four years prior to the first shots of the Civil War, that black men and women were not protected by the U.S. Constitution and could not be citizens.

So no, in 1863 the President of the United States could not point to his own Constitution for a moral guide. Yes, within a few years, following the victory of the north over the south, several amendments were added that began – we must underline BEGAN — the move towards equality for African Americans in this country.

Here are three of those amendments – passed AFTER the Civil War.

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

(after the Civil War)

1865 – Article XIII - slavery forbidden

1866 – Article XIV – civil rights for African-Americans

1870 – Article XV – voting rights for African-Americans

But obviously in 1863 Lincoln could not point to these changes in the Constitution.

So what did he direct his audience to?

Well, we have to look no further than his opening words:

Four score and seven years ago – (a score is 20 years) = 87 years.

Let’s do the math

1863

subtract

and we get

1776,

the year the Declaration of Independence was written, debated, and signed by the delegates to the Continental Congress.

And what is in the Declaration that is central to the America we NOW believe in, or at least hold up as our ideal?

The assertion that “all men are created equal.”

The belief that liberty was an "unalienable right" for all.

The notion, implicitly, that no human being can own or buy and sell another human being, as was the case under slavery, and as was allowed under the U.S. Constitution for the first 70 plus years of our nation’s existence.

By pointing BACK to the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and holding them up as his moral guide, as America’s higher authority, Lincoln actually had to SKIP over – we might even say IGNORE—a flawed Constitution, in order to find a creed around which Americans could come together.

In his essay, “The Words that Remade America,” Garry Wills argues that the Gettysburg Address influences how we look at both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

“Abraham Lincoln changed the way people

thought about the Constitution …

“The Gettysburg Address has become an authoritative expression of the American spirit – as authoritative as the Declaration itself,

and perhaps even more influential,

since it determines how we read the Declaration.”

Garry Wills

Wills then makes an even more surprising point. He asserts that the Gettysburg Address has continued to define our essential beliefs about the United States EVER SINCE.

“For most people now,” Wills wrote, “the Declaration means what Lincoln told us it means, as he did to correct the Constitution without overthrowing it…

By accepting the Gettysburg Address, and its concept of a single people dedicated to a proposition, we have been changed.

Because of it, we live in a different America.”

Wills is saying that Abraham Lincoln actually gave America a NEW definition of who we were—and what kind of nation we were going to be – from that day forward – if, still a big if in November of 1863, if the North could prove victorious in this Civil War.

This is why Gettysburg becomes a turning point in two ways:

One, the Battle itself is a turning point in the Civil War. The South has failed to successfully invade the north. Its Rebel army retreats from Pennsylvania; the troops head back south to fight another day. By 1864 the war turns in the North’s favor. And then, as you know, in April of 1865, General Lee surrenders his army, the Confederacy is defeated, and the Civil War is essentially over.

And two, the speech, Wills argues, is also a turning point, again, in how we define America.

The Confederacy did not believe all men are created equal. The Southern states seceded from the Union, in part to defend slavery and keep almost 4 million African-Americans – 4 million men, women, and children - in bondage.

Lincoln’s speech makes no reference to slavery.

But we need to see that the Gettysburg Address is about an America that will go forward opposed to what the South stood for.

That instead, we will become a nation committed to a belief in equality for all, before the law.

Lincoln believes the Northern states can rally around and fight for this principle.

He is saying, as simply and clearly as he can in 272 words, WHY the North, the Union, must continue to fight until, as Lincoln hoped with all his heart, victory would come, and the North and South could be reunited and go forward together.

Discussion.

Monday, May 18, 2026

AV #301 - When school performance ratings lose their credibility

The Accountability Act of 2009 says: hold low-performing schools accountable. But do we?

In its handling of school accountability, the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) has made decisions, supported by the State Board of Education, that must be questioned. CDE is saying that two of the lowest-performing high schools in the state have “earned” (Abraham Lincoln High)—or claim to have earned (Aurora Central High)—a higher rating on the 2025 School Performance Frameworks. And yet, in 2025, student outcomes at both high schools were again among the most alarming in Colorado. How do these new ratings make sense?

School Plans – 4 types

Overview - 2025 ratings

The % of schools on …

Performance – 68%

Improvement - 19%

Priority Improvement - 5%

Turnaround - 1%

In December the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) gave the final school performance ratings for 2024-25. Two of the biggest surprises:

1. In 2024 Abraham Lincoln had reached year 7 on the accountability clock and was given the lowest school rating, on Turnaround. Last December, CDE lifted the school’s 2025 rating up two levels, to on Improvement, with 41.8 points.

2. Aurora Central High School had been on the state’s accountability clock since 2010. In December, CDE rated the Aurora Central Campus, representing both a new K-8 building and Aurora Central High, on Improvement, with a highly dubious rating of “48.1 Points Earned.”

[BACKGROUND: In 2022, the Charles Burrell K-8 program opened on land adjacent to the high school. As CDE has explained to me, “In 2022, the district’s request to combine the high school into a K-12 campus was approved. For combined schools, the department looks across the entire school to assign an overall rating.”^{^[i]} Unfortunately, given its impact on accountability, CDE now uses “one school code”^{^[ii]} for two vastly different programs.]

AV #296 examined the achievement, growth, and attendance at these two high schools (and at Adams City High).^{^[iii]} I will not restate details that showed the schools made little if any progress from 2024 to 2025. Here I wish to make it clear that, whatever CDE’s 2025 ratings, these two high schools (or buildings, as CDE might prefer to call Aurora Central High) were two of the lowest-performing in Colorado. If our accountability process hides this truth, something is wrong.

CDE’s “Request to Reconsider Summary” explains the change in the rating for these two schools last December. No evidence in either case that academic achievement had improved; achievement is not even a factor. See Addendum A.

If CDE’s final 2025 school performance ratings no longer see Abraham Lincoln and Aurora Central as on Priority Improvement, let’s look at four other high schools that are on Priority Improvement this year. Compare their results with those at Abraham Lincoln and Aurora Central High. Judge for yourself which schools had the most anemic results.

I present 2025 data from all six schools on four categories:

1.     Achievement. How students performed on the state assessments.
2.     The School Performance Framework – what a closer look reveals.
3.     Student engagement: Attendance, Truancy, Chronic Absences, and Dropout Rate
4.     Four-year graduation rate

1. Achievement. How students performed on the state assessments.

The data below shows the enormous gap between the state average and the students’ scores in all of these schools. But note which schools—scores in red—had the lowest scores. Note, too, that all PSAT/SAT Math scores at Abraham Lincoln and Aurora Central were in the single digits. Less than 10% Met Expectations.

Academic Achievement

(PSAT/SAT data from SchoolView^{^[iv]})

		On Improvement		4 high schools on Priority Improvement
Points earned on School Performance Framework (SPF)		41.8	48.2 A.C. Campus	40.0	35.5	35.7	40.1
	STATE AVERAGE	Abraham Lincoln H.S.	Aurora Central H.S.	Adams City H.S.	Gateway H.S.	Mitchell H.S.	Thornton H.S.
Read/Write - Mean Scale Score
PSAT 9	452	308	357	356	354	358	367
PSAT 10	468	352	360	372	357	380	364
SAT 11	507	387	396	420	387	425	419
% Met/Exceeded Expectations
PSAT 9	65.4%	17.3%	26.9%	24.8%*	30.6%	29.2%	35%
PSAT 10	63.5%	21.7%	21.0%	24.6%*	28.4%	32.5%	24.4%
SAT 11	61.5%	16.7%	22.4%	28.0%*	21.1%	32.2%	27.4%

Math - Mean Scale Score
PSAT 9	428	331	346	340	355	329	346
PSAT 10	449	364	350	353	360	373	358
SAT 11	479	401	380	393	394	395	406
% Met/Exceeded Expectations
PSAT 9	37.5%	7.3%	7.7%	6.0%*	11.7%	6.8%	10.7%
PSAT 10	36.4%	6.6%	9.0%	4.5%*	8.5%	12.7%	8.6%
SAT 11	32.5%	7.3%	6.1%	4.3%*	7.6%	9.1%	7.9%

*Adams Ciy High – These are scores for the district. Numbers for the school are unavailable.^{^[v]}

Abraham Lincoln – Reading/Writing scores speak for themselves.

Aurora Central High – Scores were similar to, or lower than, those at the other four high schools. The obvious question: how did Aurora Central Campus “earn” 48.2 points on its SPF, when its high school students scored no better than those at four high schools receiving 40.1 points, or less – placing them on Priority Improvement?

4/5 of the students on the campus attended a program earning 35.9% points. 1/5 of the students were at a K-8 school earning 66% points. How does that compute to the Campus receiving 48.2% points?

One explanation might be that the “one school code” for the two different programs, a K-8 arts magnet (enrolling 500 students) and a comprehensive high school (1,900 students) led CDE to combine, in some fashion, the points earned by each. Charles Burrell K-8 earned close to 66% points on the SPF; the high school (or the 9-12 program, if you will) earned 35.9% points.

Again, “one school”? Addendum B reveals the jarring contrast in student outcomes: A tale of two “schools.”

Combining their results hides the reality of what takes place at each “building.” As a result, CDE fails to provide meaningful accountability for either the K-8 or the high school.

SAT scores – A shocking number who Did Not Yet Meet Expectations

In 2025, a higher percentage of juniors at Abraham Lincoln and Aurora Central High scored DID NOT YET MEET EXPECTATIONS on the SAT than at the other four high schools.

PSAT/SAT

4 Performance levels

-Exceeded Expectations

-Met Expectations

-Approached Expectations

-Did Not Yet Meet Expectations^{^[vi]}

Among the most troubling findings from 2025 achievement scores is that the majority of students in grades 9-11 at Abraham Lincoln High and Aurora Central High scored, not just short of Met Expectations, but in the lowest performance category, Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.

For grade 11: Among the six high schools, Abraham Lincoln and Aurora Central had the highest percentage of juniors scoring Did Not Yet Meet Expectations. (Note: This from the class of 2026, now graduating.)

For both Abraham Lincoln and Aurora Central, consider this startling fact:

On the SAT in Reading/Writing, over 70% of 11^th graders scored Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.

On the SAT in Math, over 80% of 11^th graders scored Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.

% of 11th graders scoring in the lowest performance category, Did Not Yet Meet Expectations

(Again, note the gap between the state average and results at all six schools.)

	STATE AVERAGE	Abraham Lincoln H.S.	Aurora Central H.S.	Adams City H.S.*	Gateway H.S.	Mitchell H.S.	Thornton H.S.
Reading/Writing	26.9%	72.7%	70.3%	59.3%	67.5%	57.3%	56.3%
# of students DNYM		109	248	191	224	82	142

Math	46.6%	80%	82.9%	82.1%	79.5%	78.3%	72.7%
# of students DNYM		120	315	266	263	112	184

*Adams City data is N.A.; these are figures for the Adams 14 district. See notes above.

In grades 9 and 10, in both disciplines, at both Abraham Lincoln and Aurora Central High, the majority of students also scored Did Not Yet Meet Expectations. See Endnotes.^{^[vii]}

2. The School Performance Framework – what a closer look reveals.

For high schools, CDE’s SPF presents an overall rating, and, where appropriate, a rating for each level (elementary, middle, high).

School Performance Framework - Ratings

Note the similar scores and ratings for Aurora Central, Gateway, and Mitchell. Overall, each earned below 36 percentage points.

Six high schools

From the 2025 Final School Performance Framework

	On Improvement		4 high schools on Priority Improvement

	Abraham Lincoln H.S.	*Aurora Central H.S.	Adams City H.S.	Gateway H.S.	Mitchell H.S.	Thornton H.S.
Academic Achievement	25%	25%	25%	25%	25%	25%
Academic Growth	52.7%**	46.4%	46.4%	49.1%	44%	49.1%
Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness	44.0%	32.7%	46.2%	27.9%	34.6%	43.3%
POINTS BY LEVEL		35.9%
OVERALL RATING	41.8%		40.0%	35.5%	35.7%	40.1%

*This is the rating on the School Performance Framework for the high school level. Page one of the SPF for Aurora Central Campus includes a rating for each level. The first two ratings are for the K-5 and 6-8 levels at Charles Burrell. The rating for the 9-12 level is, of course, for Aurora Central High.

**On growth at Abraham Lincoln:

This 52.7% is less impressive, as AV #296 pointed out, when seen in the context of the school’s extremely low achievement and growth scores in 2024 (and rated on Turnaround). See Endnotes.^{^[viii]}

Furthermore, the SAT Math was taken by 154 juniors. Mean scale scores improved, 2024 to 2025, from 378 to 401. Leading to a modest increase in those who Met Expectations, from 5.1% to 7.3%.

The PSAT Math was taken by 408 freshmen and sophomores. Almost no change in scores, 2024 to 2025, from 348.1 to 348.3. Both years, roughly 7% of these students Met Expectations.^{^[ix]}

SchoolView presents Academic Growth on both Reading/Writing and Math for all schools.^{^[x]} At Abraham Lincoln, as at all six of these high schools, in both disciplines, growth was between 35% to 45%. These scores fell short of the Median Growth Percentile needed to Meet Expectations (50% - 64.5%.)

The SPF on Academic Achievement (PSAT) and Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness (SAT)

Reading and Writing, and Math

CDE’s 2025 Final School Performance Framework for each school rates how well students performed on the state assessments. Freshmen and sophomores take the PSAT, juniors the SAT. The SPF gives a rating for All Students and also for four student groups: Free/Reduced-Price Lunch Eligible, Minority Students, Multilingual Learners, and Students with Disabilities.

At all six schools, for both Reading/Writing and Math, in every category, the SPF rating reads Does Not Meet. (Addendum C shows what the SPF reports for each these schools. A bleak picture.)

Aurora Central HIGH SCHOOL – School Performance Framework, 2022-2025

Below: 1) The 2022 rating for Aurora Central High School, before the K-8 school opened on this campus. 2) Since then, CDE’s SPF primary rating is for the Aurora Central Campus (the K-8 and the 9-12 programs). Page one of the SPF now also includes a rating and percentage points earned for each level. Here is what the SPF has reported for the high school level.

Aurora Central (2022-2025) - Points on School Performance Framework at the high school level

	Points for the high school	Points by Level – SPF score for high school level
	2022	2023	2024	2025
Aurora Central High School	Turnaround	Priority Improvement	Priority Improvement	Priority Improvement
Aurora Central High School	32.4	39.9%	37.7%	35.9%

The declining ratings for the high school program between 2023 and 2025 refute the claim made by the principals at both Aurora Central High and the Charles Burrell K-8.

After the CDE revealed the new Improvement rating for the Aurora Central Campus in December, the principals at both Charles Burrell and the high school released similar statements sharing “the exciting news.” Each made this false assertion.

“Aurora Central High School has made enough improvement to earn a state performance rating of ‘Improvement’ status.” ^{^[xi]}

Are such misleading statements due to a misunderstanding? To prevent that, it would have been useful if, at that December meeting before the State Board, CDE staff had taken a moment to give a brief update on the school the Board has been watching for over a decade, Aurora Central High. But not a word was said about the high school.

For CDE, a conundrum of its own making

The Colorado Department of Education’s decision to give Charles Burrell K-8 and Aurora Central High School “one school code” creates a conundrum. CDE now presents a good news story for the Campus, even as it has to acknowledge the high school’s ongoing struggles.

We saw the contradiction in CDE’s progress monitoring update to the State Board last September. CDE’s report on Aurora Central Campus, before the Request to Reconsider was approved, asserted: “Aurora Central earned points for an Improvement rating, but were decreased due to participation.” (“Earned.” As I have shown, the impressive 48.1% points came about in spite of the terribly low rating for the high school program: 35.9% points.)

Having it both ways

Listen closely to these State Board meetings and you find that, when convenient, “Aurora Central” means the Campus, but when it is about the turnaround struggles, it refers to the high school.

What did CDE’s update say about the “Aurora Central Campus”? Every word from Dr. Andy Swanson, Director of Transformation Strategy at CDE,^{^[xii]} and in the ten-page “2024-25 End-of-Year Progress Monitoring Update” for the Board,^{^[xiii]} addressed the turnaround work at Aurora Central High (partial management by TNTP, Tier I instruction, low attendance). Not one mention of Charles Burrell K-8.

The confusion was then compounded by a disingenuous comment from Board member Dr. Lisa Escarcega: “... this is really, for Central, that's amazing that they got improvement...” [xiv] More than amazing, totally inaccurate, if she was referring to the high school, which was the subject of Swanson's update. Escarcega was on Superintendent Rico Munn’s leadership team in Aurora Public Schools a decade ago when it allowed the high school to stumble forward, never demonstrating meaningful progress.^{^[xv]} No one on the Board knows as much as she does about the high school’s chronic low performance. But CDE and the Board seem intent on not speaking this truth.

With the “one school code,” CDE presents this split screen: accountability for the Campus, but not for the high school.

3. Student engagement: Attendance, Truancy, Chronic Absences, and Dropout Rate

The Request to Reconsider from Aurora Central Campus (see Addendum A) pertained to the percentage of students who took the state assessments. It had nothing to do with how students performed on them. (See above.)

Furthermore, I trust we agree that data on attendance, truancy, and chronic absenteeism at a school in 2025 says a lot more about the student engagement throughout the year than how many students show up for three days to take the state tests.

Again, CDE’s final 2025 school performance ratings placed four of these six high schools on Priority Improvement. However, of the six, notice which schools had the …

Lowest attendance - Aurora Central High

Highest rate of truancy – Aurora Central High

Highest rate of chronic absences – Aurora Central High

Highest dropout rate – Aurora Central High

Highest percentage (over 50%) of students identified as truant vs. not truant– Thornton High and Abraham Lincoln High

In red – highest percentage.

	Student Count	Attendance %	Truant %	TRUANT A*	NOT TRUANT B*	CHRON ABS %	DROPOUT %
STATE OF COLORADO		91.4%	3.6%			28.4%	1.6%
Aurora Public Schools
Aurora Central High School**	1,924	77.0	19.9	607	1,317	69.4	9.2
Gateway High School	1,845	78.7	16.8	592	1,253	64.9	5.3
Adams 14
Adams City High School	1,664	84.4	12.7	519	1,145	54.6	1.9
Adams 12
Thornton High School	1,677	79.6	15.3	887	790	58.2	1.0
Colorado Springs
Mitchell High School	831	80.3	13.6	360	471	67.9	4.7
Denver Public Schools
Abraham Lincoln High School	1,006	83.8	10.7	513	493	61.4	1.6

Data and explanation - see Endnotes.^{^[xvi]}

*A = TRUANT – MEANS - Missed 4 or more days in a month or 10 days in a year. B = NOT TRUANT

**Data is for the high school (population of 1,924 in 2024-25) for most categories. It is not for all the students on the Aurora Central Campus. (2,468 enrolled in 2024-25, which included 498 students at Charles Burrell K-8.)

Another comparison – five high schools

CDE “celebrates” schools that ADVANCED TO ON WATCH

At the State Board of Education meeting on Dec. 10, 2025, CDE staff said: “We want to celebrate those (schools) that Advanced to on Watch.” Abraham Lincoln and Aurora Central Campus were among the 33 schools to “celebrate.” Compare their outcomes with those at three high schools that also Advanced to On Watch. Again, of the five, note which schools had the …

Lowest attendance - Aurora Central High

Highest rate of truancy – Aurora Central High

Highest rate of chronic absences – Aurora Central High

Highest dropout rate – Aurora Central High

Highest percentage (over 50%) of students identified as truant vs. not truant– Abraham Lincoln

In red – highest percentage.

	Count	Attendance %	Truant %	TRUANT A	NOT TRUANT B	CHRON ABS %	DROPOUT %
STATE OF COLORADO		91.4%	3.6%			28.4%	1.6%
Aurora Central High School	1,924	77.0	19.9	607	1,317	69.4	9.2
Abraham Lincoln High (DPS)	1,006	83.8	10.7	513	493	61.4	1.6
Hinkley High (APS)	1,676	84.8	10.7	415	1,261	53.9	4.8
Harrison High (Harrison 2)	1,212	84.1	12.5	259	953	50.3	1.6
Jefferson Jr/Sr. High (Jeffco)	695	83.2	11.6	296	399	58.7	1.7

Data and explanation – as above.

Abraham Lincoln – The chronic absence rate at Abraham Lincoln increased, from 53.1% in 2024 to 61.4% in 2025. Few high schools the size of Abraham Lincoln saw more students identified as truant than not truant. Add that to the shocking number of students who do not return to Abraham Lincoln after their freshman year. See Addendum D - Voting with their feet - What students at Abraham Lincoln are telling us.

4. Four-year graduation rate – 2024-25

STATE AVERAGE	Abraham Lincoln H.S.	Aurora Central H.S.	Adams City H.S.	Gateway H.S.	Mitchell H.S.	Thornton H.S.
	On Improvement		4 high schools on Priority Improvement
85.6%	70%	59.5%	87.9%	65.4%	68.8%	81.9%

(Data from SchoolView, 2025)

To provide students the education they deserve

“In 2009, Colorado’s legislature passed the Education Accountability Act that created a system to hold the state, school districts, and schools accountable for student academic performance on specific indicators and measures, including achievement and growth on state tests and graduation rates.” Colorado Department of Education^{^[xvii]}

Is there any doubt that, in 2024-25, Abraham Lincoln High and Aurora Central High were two of the lowest-performing high schools in Colorado? At present, the state seems unwilling to say this, based more on technicalities than on the obvious fact that student outcomes at both schools were abysmal.

In lowering expectations of what is needed for schools to earn an Improvement rating, we might feel we are doing these schools a favor. In reality, we do a disservice to their students.

When the Education Accountability Act of 2009 (SB 09-163) was being debated, Chalkbeat Colorado called it “the top legislative priority of the Colorado Department of Education.”^{^[xviii]}

The Accountability Act of 2009 called on the state to provide more support for chronically low-performing schools, as well as continued pressure to improve.

The Colorado Department of Education and the State Board of Education should honor that expectation.

Let’s carry out the essential principle of the Accountability Act: to provide students the education they deserve, low-performing schools must be held accountable.

Addendum A

CDE’s 2025 District Accreditation and School Plan Type Assignments

Request to Reconsider Summary

Pursuant to the Education Accountability Act of 2009

The Education Accountability Act requires the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) to evaluate all districts and schools based on their level of attainment on key performance indicators: academic achievement, academic growth, and postsecondary and workforce readiness….

If, in reviewing the performance of the district overall or the performance of an individual school, a district finds that a different accreditation rating or plan type assignment better describes the performance of students, then the district may engage in the request to reconsider process.

Aurora Central Campus

The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) determined Aurora Central Campus met the conditions for the Accountability Participation Impact condition by (1) meeting the 95% accountability participation rate threshold in their informational 1-year performance framework, and (2) providing a district narrative that described this data and included a sufficient rationale for participating in the request process, including ways that participation will be addressed next year. Accountability participation rates in their informational performance framework are 96.5% for English Language Arts and 96.9% for Math, which is sufficient to request that their rating is not “Decreased Due to Participation”. By meeting these criteria, the CDE recommends the State Board of Education adjust Aurora Central Campus’ s rating from Priority Improvement: Decreased to Participation - Year 11 to Improvement Plan - Year 10 On Watch.

Abraham Lincoln High

The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) determined Abraham Lincoln High School met the conditions for the Body of Evidence condition by including (1) documentation that demonstrates students matriculated into a higher education institution, a Career or Technical Education program, or military option, (2) demonstrating that these student records, if included, would result in an improved plan type, and (3) providing a district narrative that described this data and included a sufficient rationale for participating in the request process. Total points earned with supplemental data is sufficient for a Improvement plan type. By meeting these criteria, the CDE recommends the State Board of Education adjust Abraham Lincoln High School’s rating from Priority Improvement - Year 8 to Improvement - Year 7 On Watch. From CDE - 2025 Request to Reconsider Summary

https://go.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/DNT3XY0911BF/$file/2025%20R2R%20Recommendation%20Summary%20for%20SBE%20Dec%202025.pdf

Addendum B

Aurora Central Campus – A tale of two “schools”

With a “one school code” for the “campus,’ CDE seems intent on taking away what common sense tells us, that Aurora Central High School is a school, all by itself. As is the Charles Burrell K-8 magnet. By insisting the state will view them as one K-12 school, CDE becomes entangled in talking about “the K-8 program” and “the 9-12 level,” or words to that effect. A school that has existed for over a century is no longer a school, but sits on a campus, which is now the school. George Orwell would shake his head at such nonsense.

A. Accountability, at present, does not address the vastly different student outcomes

“Combining” results in the School Performance Framework obscures the simple truth: the two programs produce enormously different student outcomes. If CDE won’t classify them as two distinct schools, their results tell a different story.

Charles Burrell - grades 5-8, scores well above the district average

Aurora Central High School – grades 9-12, scores well below the district average

Charles Burrell K-8	District average	School vs. district average	Aurora Central High	District average	School vs district average
CMAS English			Reading/Writing
Grade 5 - 56.3	27.2	+29.1	PSAT 9 - 26.9	39.8	-12.9
6 - 32.4	25.5	+6.9	PSAT 10 - 21.0	36.3	-15.3
7 - 35.5	29.7	+5.8	SAT 11 - 22.4	35.9	-13.5
8 - 38.6	27.6	+11.0
CMAS Math			Math
Grade 5 - 22.9	18.2	+4.7	PSAT 9 - 7.7	16.7	-9
6 - 22.1	16.6	+5.5	PSAT 10 - 9.0	20.6	-11.6
7 - 24.2	18.9	+5.3	SAT 11 - 6.1	16.4	-10.3
8 - 27.4	17.5	+9.9
CMAS Science			CMAS Science
Grade 4 - 27.1	19.0	+8.1	Grade 12 - 3.4	10.7	-7.3
8 - 27.4	15.8	+11.6

CMAS, PSAT, and SAT data for the district and for these grades - from CDE.

https://ed.cde.state.co.us/assessment/cmas-dataandresults-2025

https://ed.cde.state.co.us/assessment/sat-psat/sat-psat-data

B. Two schools - two missions

Aurora Central Campus came about when a K-8 magnet arts school opened next to a large comprehensive high school. It is not at all clear the two “buildings” see themselves as part of a “combined school” with a common purpose. One small example: the Aurora Central Campus Unified Improvement Plan for 2025-26 makes little mention of Charles Burrell K-8. It examines a school struggling to improve. That is not Charles Burrell K-8.

And we see that each “program” articulates its mission in different terms.

At the website for the high school: “Aurora Central High School strives to graduate leaders who are self-aware, locally active and globally engaged.” https://central.aurorak12.org/home

At the website for the Charles Burrell K-8: “Our campus community provides a rigorous, arts-integrated education that honors diverse perspectives and experiences, fosters deep inquiry, and develops student self-awareness” (https://burrellarts.aurorak12.org/about/vision_mission). It speaks of “our campus community.” However, the arts-integrated education is only central for students at the K-8 program.

The Aurora Central Campus UIP 2025-26 states: “The goal is for the Arts to permeate throughout the entire campus.” And yet the UIP then proceeds to say little about the arts. Not until the bottom of page 10 (see “Strengthen Student Postsecondary & Workforce Readiness”) do we read of plans for the Visual and Performing Arts and the Burrell Arts pathway throughout the high school.

We read there: “The Burrell Arts pathway includes 9th-12th grade students, making up approximately 200 students out of 1,800 total high school students.”

The arts pathway is just one component of the high school program.

At Charles Burrell K-8 the arts are central to the mission.

https://co-uip.my.site.com/uipv2/apex/uipV2PrintPublic?dcode=0180&scode=1458

Addendum C

For all six schools, on the Final SPF rating on the PSAT and SAT, results look something like this:

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT (9^th/10^th Grades)		2025 - Rating
Subject	Student Group
CO PSAT – Reading/Writing	All students	Does Not Meet
	English Learners	Does Not Meet
	Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	Does Not Meet
	Minority Students	Does Not Meet
	Students with Disabilities	Does Not Meet
CO PSAT – Math	All students	Does Not Meet
	English Learners	Does Not Meet
	Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	Does Not Meet
	Minority Students	Does Not Meet
	Students with Disabilities	Does Not Meet

POSTSECONDARY AND WORKFORCE READINESS (11^th GRADE)
Subject	Student group	2025 - Rating
CO SAT – Reading/Writing	All students	Does Not Meet
	English Learners	Does Not Meet
	Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	Does Not Meet
	Minority Students	Does Not Meet
	Student for Disabilities*	Does Not Meet
CO SAT – Math	All students	Does Not Meet
	English Learners	Does Not Meet
	Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible	Does Not Meet
	Minority Students	Does Not Meet
	Students with Disabilities*	Does Not Meet

*For Abraham Lincoln, no rating - N<16.

Addendum D

Voting with their feet - What students at Abraham Lincoln are telling us.

After freshmen year at Abraham Lincoln, over 100 do not return for sophomore year.

Pupil membership - Abraham Lincoln High School 2019-20 to 2025-26

	Grade 9	Grade 10	Grade 11	Grade 12	TOTAL
2019-20	344	242	186	199	971
2020-21	374	215	177	198	964
2021-22	421	227	171	174	993
2022-23	341	292	185	168	986
2023-24	349	228	224	191	992
2024-25	339	243	160	223	965
2025-26	282	209	162	177	830

At Abraham Lincoln, for the past six years, a large percentage of students do not return after freshman year.

The number enrolled freshman year, then the declining number enrolled as sophomores the next year.

344 to 215

374 to 227

421 to 292

341 to 228

349 to 243

339 to 209

A large number of sophomores do not return for junior year.

Number enrolled sophomore year, then the declining number enrolled as juniors the next year.

242 to 177

215 to 171

227 to 185

292 to 224

228 to 160

243 to 162

Endnotes

[i] Email from Lisa Medler to me, Dec. 27, 2025. “For combined schools, the department looks across the entire school to assign an overall rating. The frameworks include detail report on each school level to show what each level (E, M and H) would have been had it stood on its own, but this is only informational. The high school’s board order has stayed with the overall campus (e.g., years on the clock continued), and the framework was calculated just like any other K-12 school.”

[ii] Email from Lisa Medler to me, Oct. 1, 2025. “Because the full K-12 school has one school code, the entire school is technically on the accountability clock – Year 9.”

[iii] AV #296 - These 4,500 high school students deserve something better - Three low-performing high schools, with rarely seen numbers/graphs. A learning gap? More like a learning chasm. (Feb. 2026), https://anotherviewphj.blogspot.com/2026/02/

[iv] From the Colorado Department of Education’s SchoolView - https://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/explore/welcome

and from CDE’s https://ed.cde.state.co.us/assessment/sat-psat/sat-psat-data

[v] Adams City High School scores - The far majority of high school students in Adams 14 who take the PSAT and SAT assessments are students at Adams City High. (Fo example, for Math: on PSAT 9, 361 out of 365 students taking the assessment were Adams City High students; on PSAT 10, 350 out of 358; on SAT 11, 293 out of 324. The only other high school program in Adams 14 is the much smaller alternative high school.) https://ed.cde.state.co.us/assessment/sat-psat/sat-psat-data

[vi] From CDE: For the PSAT/SAT, scores fall into four performance levels. Level 1: “Students performing at this level may minimally approach the academic expectations for the knowledge, skills and practices known to be most relevant for success in college and careers …”

[vii] From AV #296 –

# and % of students who Did Not Meet Expectations – PSAT Reading/Writing

Abraham Lincoln High – Gr. 9 – 149/220 (68%) Gr. 10 – 134/212 (63.2%)

Aurora Central High - Gr. 9 - 187/334 (56%) Gr. 10 - 209/333 (62.8%)

# and % of student who Did Not Meet Expectations – PSAT MATH

Abraham Lincoln High - Gr. 9 – 193/220 (88%) Gr. 10 – 167/211 (79.1%)

Aurora Central High - Gr. 9 – 303/365 (83%) Gr. 10 – 293/355 (82.5%)

[viii] From AV #296 - “COMMENT: Growth scores at Abraham Lincoln. Context matters.”

“To be specific, at Abraham Lincoln, comparing scores in 2024 to 2025:

SAT mean scale score on English - up from 372 in 2024 to 387 in 2025. Which equated to an increase from 12.8% to 16.7% Meeting Expectations.

SAT mean scale score on Math – up from 378 to 401. Which only meant an increase from 5.1% to 7.3% Meeting Expectations.

And for younger students, PSAT scores for 9th graders declined in both Reading/Writing (353 dropped to 308) and Math (336 to 331).”

[ix] Scores from the School Performance Framework for Abraham Lincoln in 2024 and 2025.

https://ed.cde.state.co.us/assessment/sat-psat/sat-psat-data

[x] SchoolView - https://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/explore/welcome

“For the Academic Growth performance indicator, the framework assigns ratings based on median student growth percentile (MGPs) and Percent On-Track to Proficiency calculations that are generated using the Colorado Growth Model.”

[xi] From ACHS Principal Kurtis Quig (excerpt)

Dear Aurora Central High School Community (Bold mine)

I am deeply proud to share some exciting news about our school’s performance progress.

It is now official that for the first time in more than 15 years, Aurora Central High School has made enough improvement to earn a state performance rating of “Improvement” status. In previous years, our school received ratings of “Priority Improvement” or “Turnaround,” so this newly earned status represents a truly significant celebration for our entire school community.

I want to thank and celebrate the hard work, commitment and perseverance of our students, staff and families.

From Anne Ferris, Principal, Charles Burrell K-8

Dear Burrell K-8 Community,

I am happy to share some exciting news about our Charles Burrell campus’ performance progress. Recently, the Colorado State Board of Education voted to finalize our appeal on our campus’ performance framework rating. It is now official that for the first time in more than 15 years, Aurora Central High School has made enough improvement to earn a state performance rating of “Improvement” status. I do want to emphasize that our K-8 school’s performance has always been at the highest rating of “Performance” since our school opened, so we are excited to be part of this newly earned status as part of one campus, which represents a truly significant celebration for our entire community.

[xii] Colorado Department of Education – presentation to the State Board of Education, Sept. 10, 2026.

“Progress Monitoring Updates - Aurora Central Campus (Aurora Public Schools)

❖ Aurora Central Campus received a Priority Improvement - Year 11 (decreased due to participation) rating on the 2025 Preliminary SPF.

❖ Focus of Pathway Plan ➢ Partial Management (TNTP) and Innovation, focused on enhancing instructional practices, strengthening PLCs, goal setting, and leadership capacity building.

❖ 24-25 End-of-Year Summary ➢ Aurora Central began their partnership with TNTP in 24-25, following a summer re-hearing in 2024. The partnership has been focused on developing teacher practices in Tier 1 Instruction and effective progress monitoring practices by the school’s leadership, district leadership, and TNTP.

❖ Data Update ➢ Despite progress in improving their attendance from previous years (7 out of 9 months demonstrated improved attendance), attendance continues to be low at Aurora Central Campus (high 70s, low 80s for most months).”

[xiii] On page 10 of this report for the State Board, in the next-to-last sentence, we read “of ninth graders in accessing all 3 pathways on campus (Career and Technical Education, Concurrent Enrollment, and the Charles Burrell Arts Pathway).” “2024-25 End-of-Year Progress Monitoring Update September 2025,” https://go.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/DL6TF4771969/$file/2024-25%20EOY%20Aurora%20Central%20Campus%20(Aurora%20Public%20Schools)%20Progress%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf

[xiv] State Board Meeting, Progress Monitoring Update, Sept. 10, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AWXHm_efus

[xv] “APS school board signs off on ‘innovation’ plan for Aurora Central High School,“ The Sentinel, June 2, 2015, https://sentinelcolorado.com/metro/aps-school-board-signs-off-innovation-plan-aurora-central-high-school/

[xvi] Attendance, truancy data, chronic absenteeism data - from CDE: https://ed.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/attendancestatistics

The number of students at each school differs from those at CDE’s Pupil Membership page.

CDE explains: “The attendance enrollment numbers capture students who were enrolled throughout the year so add students who may have arrived to a school later in the school year. The attendance collection student counts should be used for truancy, attendance rate and chronic absenteeism.” (Email to me from Johann Liljengren, March 29, 2026.)

Dropout statistics - data from CDE: https://ed.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/dropoutstatistics

[xvii] "Accountability Pathways and Hearings, Fact Sheet," Colorado Department of Education, https://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/accountabilitypathwayshearingsfactsheet

[xviii] “Accountability bill heads to governor,” by Todd Engdahl, Chalkbeat Colorado, May 1, 2009, https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2009/5/1/21102644/accountability-bill-heads-to-governor/