Another View #121
Peter Huidekoper, Jr. Oct. 28, 2014
More
federal dollars to Colorado for the School Improvement Grant?
After $63
million, time to say: No thanks. We haven’t earned it.
You
aren’t seriously going to argue that we should refuse another $5 or $6 million to
improve our high-poverty, low-performing schools, are you? Who can argue with that?
Here is last
January’s press release from the U.S. Department of Education, announcing that
Colorado would—for the fifth straight year—receive a large grant.
U.S. Department
of Education Announces Awards to 7 States
to Continue
Efforts to Turn Around Lowest-Performing Schools
“U.S.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today announced that seven states will
receive more than $39 million to continue efforts to turn around their persistently lowest-achieving schools through new
awards from the Department's School Improvement Grants (SIG) program. The
states receiving these new awards are: Colorado,
Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Utah and Washington.” (Jan. 27, 2014)
(Bold mine)
“…
for the fourth straight year the Colorado Department of Education has not produced
a report to tell us the results of its work.”
|
“Turn Around.” “Lowest-achieving schools.” The intent was
always admirable—especially when we see the “poverty rates” (percentage of
students eligible for free and reduced lunch, FRL) at three of the schools that
last year received three-year School Improvement Grants: Bruce Randolph in DPS
(98% FRL), Scott Carpenter Middle School in Westminster (88%) and Aurora
Central High (71%).
This newsletter looks at
the results of $2.34 million spent at these
schools in 2013-14. Any signs of major change? None that I can see.
I believe it is time to
blow the whistle.
No one would say these
students do not deserve our support—and a good education. But it is time now to tell Washington: Stop!
No more “School Improvement” funds for our state, thank you.
We don’t deserve it.
Secretary of Education Arnie
Duncan’s sentiments—in announcing a central reason for the grant last
January—felt right. But when he spoke of the results of years 1-4 (2010-2013)—for
over 40 Colorado schools anyway—it did not ring true.
"When schools fail, our children and neighborhoods
suffer," Duncan said. "Turning around our lowest-performing schools
is hard work but it's our responsibility. We owe it to our children, their
families and the broader community. These School Improvement Grants are helping
some of the lowest-achieving schools provide a better education for students
who need it the most." (http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-awards-7-states-continue-efforts-turn-around-l)
That press release went on to explain that state departments of
education use the SIG funds to make “competitive subgrants to school districts
that demonstrate the greatest need for the funds and the strongest commitment
to provide adequate resources to substantially raise student achievement in
their lowest-performing schools.”
Sadly, the Colorado Department of Education has selected districts
and schools where, for a variety of reasons, we have but a few instances—out of
45 schools—where the effort has “substantially raised student achievement.”
Therefore, I believe it is past time when we should accept our
failure to accomplish the goals of the SIG “turn around” effort. We should thank the U.S. Department of
Education for the $63 million committed to Colorado the past five years—and
say, “Enough, no more.” If federal dollars are available for
round six of the School Improvement Grant this coming winter, one state, at least,
should be accountable and admit that we have not figured out how to turn around
our lowest-performing schools with these funds. Colorado should say: Thanks anyway,
but not one more dollar.
Year
|
SIG
funds to Colorado*
|
2010-11
|
$39,732,239
|
2011-12
|
$ 7,469,800
|
2012-13
|
$ 5,775,682
|
2013-14
|
$ 5,275,756
|
2014-15
|
$ 5,024,226
|
TOTAL
|
$63,277,703
|
*Figures on years 1-4 from “Colorado’s Turnaround
Schools 2010-13: Make a Wish,” by A Plus Denver (Dec. 2013); Year 5 from U.S.
Department of Education–estimate. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sisgawards.pdf.
School Improvement
Grant – $63 million overseen by Colorado Department of Education
For the past several years I have, either in my own newsletter[1],
or working on A Plus Denver reports[2],
studied and/or written about the results of the School Improvement Grant (now
called the Tiered Intervention Grant, but I will use the SIG term here), a federal
grant to low-performing, high-poverty schools across the country. As of fall
2014, the federal government has committed over $63 million to “turn around” 45
Colorado schools (across the country, nearly $5 billion). Every report I have contributed to has shown disappointing
results. (See Addendum A: even a few
“rays of hope” noted in past reports have been dashed.) And yet for the fourth
straight year CDE has not produced a report to tell us the results of its work.[3]
Again it is left to some other group or individual to publish the 2013-14 data
coming from these schools.
One person’s perspective is not persuasive, of course—especially given my
years of skepticism on this effort. However,
please note the criticism of CDE’s management of the School Improvement
Grant—by the U.S. Department of Education in 2013. The only “external audit” I
can find, with several “findings” worth a look. (See excerpts at Addendum
B - “Monitoring of state efforts by U.S.
Department of Education.”)
Here is an initial take on three
of the five schools that received the first year of the 3-year SIG funds in
2013-14—part of what is known as Cohort
IV (the fourth year of SIG funding from the U.S. Department of Education to
Colorado), and a brief look at the schools selected to be in Cohort V—now receiving the first year
of their 3-year grants (2014-15 to 2016-17).
Decide for yourself if you see
signs here of schools headed towards “significant improvement.”
2013-14 School
Improvement Grant - Cohort IV
In 2013 five schools were selected
to receive federal School Improvement Grants totaling $6.8 million over three years.
This section of
the report looks at Bruce Randolph, Aurora Central High, and Scott Carpenter
Middle School, set to receive nearly $5.4 million—an average of close to $1.8
million per school—between 2013-14 and 2015-16.
This federal grant requires the schools applying to choose one of four “turnaround
models”: restart, closure, turnaround
(includes “replace the principal and rehire no more than 50 of the school’s
staff”); or transformation (generally
acknowledged to be the least disruptive of the four options). See Addendum
C for an overview of Cohorts I-V in Colorado and the various turnaround
models selected.
The two other
schools in Cohort IV are Lester Arnold High School and Vilas OnLine High School.[4]
Cohort IV – Recipients of School Improvement Grant – 2013-14 to 2015-16[5]
School
|
District
|
3 year grant total
|
Turnaround model
|
Aurora
Central High School
|
Aurora
Public Schools
|
$2,377,157
|
transformation
|
Scott
Carpenter Middle School
|
Westminster 50
|
$1,607,508
|
transformation
|
Bruce
Randolph Middle School*
|
Denver
Public Schools
|
$1,399,800
|
transformation
|
TOTAL for
these 3 schools
|
$5,384,465
|
||
Lester
Arnold H.S.
|
Adams 14 School District
|
$1,405,437
|
transformation
|
Vilas
On-Line H.S.
|
Vilas Re-5
|
$ 20,995
|
closure
|
TOTAL for
Cohort IV schools
|
$6,811,897
|
(*Bruce Randolph is a 6-12 school but the
grant went to its middle school program.)
In 2013-14, year one of the
three-year SIG funding, Aurora Central, Scott Carpenter, and Bruce Randolph received
a total of $2.34 million. Given the
student enrollment at these schools/programs (we only provide Bruce Randolph’s grade
6-8 population), the grant equated to $1,408 per student at Scott Carpenter, $1,160
per student at Bruce Randolph, and $480 per student at Aurora Central.
(COMMENT: One has to wonder what $1,408 spent on
individual tutoring for each of the 594 students at Scott Carpenter might have accomplished
last year…. Let’s see: at $25 an hour, over 28 hours of math tutoring, over 28
hours of tutoring in English, would bring us to … $1,400 per student.)
FIRST YEAR OF
School Improvement Grant – 2013-14
|
Enrollment fall 2013
|
SIG funds per pupil for 2013-14
|
|
Scott Carpenter M.S.
|
$ 836,112
|
594 (6-8)
|
$1,408
|
Bruce Randolph M.S.
|
$ 488,200
|
421 (6-8)
|
$1,160
|
Aurora Central H.S.
|
$1,017,239
|
2,120 (9-12)
|
$ 480
|
TOTAL
|
$2,341,551
|
The
following data presents just a small portion of the results of this $2.34
million investment. Certainly goals addressing
concerns about “inconsistent classroom management abilities” or a “lack well
developed culturally responsive educational practices”, or goals for stronger parent
engagement, or for the school community as a whole—such as “establishing
greater trust and collaboration,” are not measured by this kind of data. It may well be that the schools made great
strides in meeting these vital if less concrete goals. Nevertheless, I present the data accessible
to all. With CDE not offering any public
accounting of whether the grant made any difference, here at least are some of
the results.
Does a look at year one data suggest these
schools are likely “to substantially raise student achievement” within three
years? Based on 2013-14 results, it
seems unlikely.
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BRUCE RANDOLPH MIDDLE SCHOOL
Bruce Randolph (6-12)
- Denver’s School Performance Framework (DPS does not rate the middle school
and high school programs separately)
Overall rating
|
Points Earned
|
Academic Proficiency*
|
Academic Growth
|
C/C Readiness**
|
Readiness Growth***
|
|
2011
|
Accredited on Watch
|
46%
|
Does Not Meet- 27%
|
Approaching –
42%
|
Approaching – 49%
|
Meets –
74%
|
2012
|
Accredited on Priority Watch
|
38%
|
Does Not Meet – 12%
|
Does
Not Meet– 33%
|
Meets-
53%
|
Approaching – 44%
|
2013
|
Accredited on Priority Watch
|
39%
|
Does Not Meet – 12%
|
Approaching- 35%
|
Approaching – 47%
|
Meets-
57%
|
2014
|
Accredited on Watch
|
44.06%
|
Does Not Meet-16%
|
Approaching – 41%
|
Meets – 51%
|
Meets – 76%
|
MOVED
UP from Accredited on Priority Watch to Accredited on Watch on the district’s
SPF, which evaluates the 6-12 school as a whole. In contrast, the state SPF
evaluates the two different components – the middle school versus the high
school – separately. In 2013 the state evaluated the middle school as
low-performing and so it was the middle school that received the SIG funds. On coloradoschoolgrades
the high school was given a C,
but the middle school a D- (477 out
of 503 schools). The state’s 2014 SPF has not been released.
*
Academic Proficiency
This category of measures is a snapshot of how well students performed
on state assessments during the previous school year. A school’s rating is
based primarily on the percentage of its students who scored at grade level or
above grade level on state tests. (Source of these definitions – DPS - http://spf.dpsk12.org/)
**
College & Career Readiness
This category measures how well a high school is preparing its students
for post-secondary success. College & Career Readiness includes graduation
rates, performance on assessments (ACT, Advanced Placement (AP), International
Baccalaureate (IB), etc.) and enrollment in higher-level course work (AP, IB,
etc.)
***
Improvement In College & Career Readiness over Time
This category measures how well a high school is improving its
preparation of its students for post-secondary success. This category rates
each school on its successful improvement of graduation rates and performance
on state and national assessments. It also measures changes in enrollment in AP
and IB program coursework and college courses, as well as changes to students’
passing rates on AP and IB tests.
**
OVERALL the 6-12
school continues to perform well below the state average. CDE’s School View
brings together the middle and high school results that show Bruce Randolph
students are 35% below the state average in reading and 30% below the state
average in both writing and math.
TCAP - % proficient/advanced - 2014
State
|
Bruce
Randolph
|
|
Reading
|
67.98%
|
32.40%
|
Writing
|
55.09%
|
25.89%
|
Math
|
47.68%
|
17.31%
|
**
Now, a closer look at the middle school results for 2014.
TARGETS for 2014
were in the 2013 SIG Application. The SIG
Request for Proposal asks applicants to “Provide evidence to demonstrate that
overall goals and performance targets are included by year. Annual math and
reading/language arts academic goals are set for each school site the grant
will serve. Expectations for growth after one year must be clear.”
Sixth Grade
COMMENT: The
declining 6th grade scores over these three years is a big concern. Scores
declined in all three subjects from 2013 to 2014.
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
|
2012
|
36%
|
27.2%
|
32.2%
|
2013
|
40.70%
|
34.7%
|
23.7%
|
2014
|
27.07%
|
22.56%
|
23.31%
|
Down a
lot
|
Down a
lot
|
Down
slightly
|
|
Target
|
54.1%
|
38.3%
|
32.8%
|
Seventh grade (Improvement in all three subjects.)
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
|
2012
|
23.7
|
14.1
|
14.7
|
2013
|
28.8
|
28.2
|
19.9
|
2014
|
32.39
|
33.8
|
23.24
|
Up 4
|
Up 5+
|
Up 3
|
|
Target
|
48.1
|
31.8
|
24.3
|
Eighth grade (Improvement in all three subjects.)
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
|
2012
|
27.5
|
13.4
|
13.4
|
2013
|
18.8
|
11.7
|
13.0
|
2014
|
34.53
|
28.78
|
21.58
|
WAY UP /
16+
|
WAY UP /
17+
|
UP 8
|
|
Target
|
49.6
|
31.3
|
23.3
|
TARGETS – Bruce Randolph’s application for SIG funds lists nine targets, one for each discipline in each of the
three grades.
IN
RED, Bruce
Randolph met one of the nine targets for 2014, in 7th grade
writing. Note that in 2013 it climbed
from 14.1 to 28.2, a strong jump, making it possible to reach the 31.8 target
in 2014.
IN
BLUE –
Bruce Randolph came close to meeting three
other targets, two for 8th graders.
OVERALL, in all three grades, in the three subjects, 65% or
more were not proficient in 2014.
Improved scores in 7th and 8th
grade were a step in the right direction. However, they were too small to see
the school reach the STATE AVERAGE (50%) Median Growth Percentile* in any of
the three disciplines:
Median Growth Percentile
-Reading – 45%
-Writing - 47%
-Math - 43%
*Median Growth Percentile: This number shows how far students
are progressing compared to their so-called “academic peers,” that is, other
students who’ve posted similar results on test scores in the past. Typical
growth for an individual student centers around the 50th percentile. Lower
means slower growth, higher means better than average. (Source: Chalkbeat Colorado)
The SIG grant was not directed at
the high school program. But it will be worth following the 2014 8th
graders as they enter Bruce Randolph’s 9th grade—to see if their
improvement in 2013-14 continues. Last
year, 9th grade scores dropped significantly in reading and dropped
several points in writing. And for the
second year in a row less than 10% of 9th graders were proficient in
math.
Ninth grade – Overall
9th grade did worse in 2014 than in 2013.
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
|
2012
|
31.3
|
14.2
|
11.9
|
2013
|
37.1
|
23.5
|
9.1
|
2014
|
27.21
|
19.85
|
9.56
|
Down 10
|
Down 4
|
Up
slightly
|
AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AURORA CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
TCAP - % Proficient
& Advanced – 2012 to 2014
Ninth grade
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
|
2012
|
29.9
|
15.5
|
14.4
|
2013
|
34.1
|
18.2
|
10.3
|
2014
|
33.77
|
21.85
|
13.25
|
Down
slightly
|
Up 3+
|
Up 3
(but lower than 2012)
|
|
Target
|
53
|
33
|
23
|
Tenth grade
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
Science
|
|
2012
|
34.5
|
14.5
|
9.3
|
13.7
|
2013
|
35.0
|
12.7
|
11.7
|
12.7
|
2014
|
37.98
|
16.77
|
7.44
|
--
|
Up
slightly
|
Up 4
points
|
Down 4 (lowest in last 3 years)
|
--
|
|
Target
|
53
|
33
|
23
|
Writing improved in both
grades.
Math scores were better for
9th grade, although less than 14% are proficient/advanced. 10th grade math scores dropped—less
than 8% proficient.
Reading proficiency – little
change for grades 9 & 10; 9th grade a bit down, 10th grade a bit
up.
TARGETS – Aurora Central’s
application for SIG funds includes these “targets”; they were not broken out by
grades, but simply stated: Reading – 53; Writing – 33; Math - 23. It did not come anywhere close to meeting
these targets.
OVERALL, combining the two grades, about 65% are not proficient in reading, over 80% are not proficient in
writing, and nearly 90% are not
proficient in math. Its Median Growth Percentile met or exceeded
the state average in 2014 in all three disciplines, but its MGP needs to be
well over 60% for the students to catch up.
In writing, for example, the 2014 result of 50% is well short of the 91%
the state indicates would be the Adequate Growth Percentile* (see bold); in
math, Aurora Central’s 55% MGP is a far cry from the 99% Adequate Growth
Percentile.
Median Growth Percentile
-Reading - 54%
-Writing - 50%
-Math -
55%
*Adequate Growth Percentile: This
measure estimates whether students’ progress last year will be enough for the
school’s students to reach or maintain proficiency. With this indicator,
lower is better. Lower numbers represent an easier task because less growth is
required. A school with an AGP of 12 means that, on the whole, this school’s
students have a strong test score history and, even if their growth or progress
is low, they’re probably still on track to stay proficient. On the other hand, a school with an AGP of 95 probably has
many students that have had low test scores and they need to make an
extraordinary amount of growth to catch up in the time allotted. (Source: Chalkbeat
Colorado) (Bold mine)
11th grade -
ACT RESULTS
COMPOSITE
|
State
|
District
(APS)
|
Aurora
Central
|
2013
|
20.1
|
17.1
|
15.0
|
2014
|
20.3
|
17.2
|
15.2
|
Up 0.2
|
|||
Target
|
16.7
|
||
ENGLISH
|
|||
2013
|
19.4
|
16.0
|
13.5
|
2014
|
19.7
|
16.1
|
13.6
|
Up 0.1
|
|||
MATH
|
|||
2013
|
20.1
|
17.6
|
16.2
|
2014
|
20.1
|
17.5
|
16.0
|
Down 0.2
|
|||
READING
|
|||
2013
|
20.4
|
17.0
|
14.7
|
2014
|
20.5
|
17.2
|
15.3
|
Up 0.6
|
TARGET
– Aurora Central’s application includes goals over the three years of the grant.
The target for ACT scores for 2013-14 was 16.7. (For 2014-15, the target is 17.6.)
COMMENT:
Improving ACT scores by .2% points, as it did this past year, will not bring
the school to just a 16.0 on the ACT until 2018. At this rate, it will be 2026
before it reaches its 2015 target of 17.6.
WESTMINSTER 50 DISTRICT
SCOTT CARPENTER MIDDLE SCHOOL
COMMENT:
Last year’s A Plus Denver report on turnarounds found that none of the four
schools awarded SIG funds by CDE were given a score higher than 71% (for Bruce
Randolph) on the Grant Review Rubric. But Scott Carpenter was given by far the
lowest score—only 75 points out of a possible total of 164, or 46% of the
possible total. Nevertheless, it was awarded over $1.6 million of the SIG funds.
Sixth Grade
COMMENT: Declining 6th grade reading
and writing scores over three years - worse in 2014 than in 2012 – is a big
concern. Math only slightly better in
2014 than in 2013. But note the low math
scores in grades 7 and 8—less than 17% proficient. It is clear students will need a much
stronger start in grade 6 in order to do well in grades 7 and 8.
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
|
2012
|
35.0
|
19.8
|
18.7
|
2013
|
40.7
|
25.5
|
24.4
|
2014
|
29.83
|
17.13
|
25.97
|
Down a
lot
|
Down
|
Up
slightly
|
Seventh grade (Decline in all three subjects)
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
|
2012
|
31.5
|
26.0
|
11.7
|
2013
|
37.9
|
31.6
|
18.5
|
2014
|
33.01
|
24.76
|
16.99
|
Down
|
Down
|
Down
slightly
|
Eighth grade (Improvement in all three subjects.)
Reading
|
Writing
|
Math
|
|
2012
|
32.4
|
20.3
|
14.7
|
2013
|
32.8
|
18.3
|
11.7
|
2014
|
33.87
|
29.57
|
16.58
|
Up
slightly
|
UP A LOT
|
UP
|
OVERALL, Scott Carpenter can
point to some improvement for 8th grade proficiency scores in 2014. But
in all three grades, in the three subjects, 65% or more were not proficient in
2014. In writing, roughly 75% of the students were not proficient, and in math
about 80% were not proficient.
TARGETS - In its
application for SIG funds, Scott Carpenter did not state any targets for
students reaching proficiency, but did establish a goal of 70% MGP (Median
Growth Percentile) in 2013-14 (and 73% MGP for 2014-15 and 75% for 2015-16 in
all three disciplines: reading, writing, and math. (http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/tigwestminster50)
Most troubling are the growth scores for Scott
Carpenter. The school came nowhere close
to the goal of 70% Median Growth Percentile.
In fact, it did not reach the State Average MGP (50%) in any of the
three disciplines:
Median Growth Percentile
-Reading – 39%
-Writing - 44%
-Math -
41%
Funding for 2014-15 to these
three schools – full speed ahead (almost)
2014-15 is year two of the three-year SIG for these
schools. CDE reviews progress at
the schools and has determined to go ahead with year two funding for Aurora
Central and Bruce Randolph. And “Scott Carpenter has received conditional
approval, pending a school diagnostic review and adjustments to its plan based
on the results of the review” (email to me from Brad Bylsma, Oct. 15).
If the
SIG funds projected for years two and three continue to support the efforts at all
three schools, they will receive $5.38 million in taxpayer money.
To date,
based on the above data, no signs of major improvement at any of the three
schools. True?
School Improvement Grant - Cohort V – Application and Selection spring/summer
In its Request for Proposals for the School
Improvement Grant of 2014, CDE wrote: “Approximately $6 million is available
for distribution to LEAs.” These five
schools were awarded three-year grants totaling a little more than $1 million
per school.
School
|
3- year
grant*
|
Crawford Elementary (Aurora)
|
$1,051,098
|
Ashley Elementary (DPS)
|
$1,004,890
|
Castro Elementary (DPS)
|
$1,002,201
|
Cheltenham (DPS)
|
$1,050,615
|
Fairview Elementary (DPS)
|
$1,101,271
|
TOTAL
|
$5,210,075
|
*Tiered Intervention Grant, 2014 - Cohort V – Approved plans and budgets
- http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/ti/sitig
Of course, as the five schools selected to
receive SIG funds in Cohort V only started to receive the money during this
2014-15 school year, questions and concerns raised for these schools are not
about student data. Instead, they have to with the selection process. These points have been raised before, to
little effect, based on what I have learned.
Notifying schools too late in the summer
Some will recall the rather late announcement
of the first year of the SIG funds in 2010 – when the U.S. Department of
Education made its most generous grant towards school turnaround efforts to the
states—totaling $39 million to Colorado.
A number of the parties involved (CDE, districts and schools) reported that
the application and selection process was rushed, and found that the schools
had little time over the summer to prepare and plan for the major changes they
had written about in their proposals. It
was so rushed in DPS that grants were awarded to Montbello and Rachel Noel in August,
but the Denver School Board did not agree to a radically different plan – a
phasing out of both schools – until the following November (http://www.aplusdenver.org/_docs/TurnaroundFinal121813.pdf, p. 13).
Late notification led A Plus Denver to raise
this question in its 2011 report:
3.
Timing of grants – should Colorado request a waiver?
Last
May CDE announced it had received $7.5 million to support a second round of
turnaround schools; CDE says it will announce its new three-year grants in
October. How does a school welcome a grant that might require a change in its
leadership and the removal of half the staff, particularly when it gets the
money in the fall? The timing of the federal grants can pose problems.
Announcing the first year grants in August 2010 made it difficult for schools
to rethink their leadership and redesign issues just as the year began.
Delaware and Tennessee were able to get waivers to alter the timing of this
grant. Colorado might wish to do the same so that the funds go out at the most
opportune time. (http://www.aplusdenver.org/_docs/TurnaroundReport11111.pdf, p. 10)
In that report A Plus also published CDE’s
response, which included this sentence:
“The timing is a concern for CDE – Systems were not
able to change policies and structures prior to the start of the school year in
both rounds.”
But a review of the timing of this year’s
process suggests CDE did not proceed in a timely manner, again leading to late
notification to the schools “winning” the grants.
February: CDE’s Brad Bylsma, Assistant Director of Competitive
Grants and Awards, explained to me: “CDE received USDE approval
of its state Title I SIG application in February, 2014.”
CDE’s
Request for Proposal stated Feb. 12 as the
date of the RFP Release. It also
included the following:
“REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Proposals due:
Part A: Thursday, March 27, 2014 by 4 p.m.
Part B: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 by 4 p.m.
That RFP also stated: “May 15 – May 30, 2014 - Final
Approval and Pre-Implementation Activities. CDE will review and score Part A
and Part B of application. Final awards will be made in late May.”
May: As it was understood that the award would be made
in late May, giving the school community all of June and July to do some
careful planning for how to proceed during the coming school year, the RFP
listed the Year 1 grant this way: “The duration of Year 1 will be May 30, 2014
to September 30, 2015.”
June: But the awards were not
made in late May, nor even late June.
In early June I began to ask about the schools named for Cohort V. I sent five emails - on June 6, July 8, July
18, and July 28, and August 11[6] -making
this request.
August: I finally heard from CDE
on August 12 that the districts had been informed. I then asked, “when were these schools
told they would be the recipients?” and learned that “formal notification went out to the districts on July
21st” (email Aug 12).
Recently I inquired further about the timing
of the grant announcements to the schools. Brad Bylsma’s email of October 15
explained:
“Based on a review of the proposals submitted in the first
round of the process, CDE determined that none
of them were sufficient to yield the significant school improvements that are
the intent of the grant. Consequently, all underwent an extensive
revision process. Applicants were formally notified of final approval on July 21st.”
(Bold mine)
If a delay was due to CDE’s insistence that
the applications demonstrate greater clarity and commitment, fine. An extensive
rewrite? Good. But I still see no reason
the five schools should have been notified so late. In the fifth year of this effort, we should
have learned this lesson by now.
“Competitive grants” – CDE approves
5 of 7 applications, in spite of concerns
Finally, a word on the quality of the
applications. A Plus Denver’s reports have twice stressed
the concern that CDE had approved grants to nearly every eligible school that
had applied for SIG funds. Its 2011 report asked:
4. Will Round 2 of the School Improvement Grant in
Colorado be “competitive?”
Making grants to all those who applied hardly made
Colorado’s effort in 2010 seem “competitive.” A close look at what happened in
DPS and Pueblo 60 with the SIG application reveals little enthusiasm for—or
clarity regarding—several of these restructuring plans. … Can’t we, like
several states, raise the bar, and approve a smaller percentage of applicants?
A Plus Denver’s
2013 report repeated the point in a passage on “selection and accountability”:
We have raised questions in
the past about whether the state’s selection process was competitive enough …. While
CDE maintains that one of its objectives was to allocate resources to
struggling schools as quickly as possible, we believe that had a large pool of
applicants been recruited and funding been awarded more selectively,
applications might have been stronger and thus the likelihood of success
higher. As it was, 95% of applicants were awarded funding, compared to 63%
nationally. Just two schools were denied grants.
It would be one thing if
all of the applications were strong, but by the state’s own standards, many of
the applications were very weak. Many of the scores were in the 50s and 60s
(out of 100) and one school scored as low as 46. However, all but two schools
were awarded large grants no matter how strong their proposal.
Among the recommendations at the conclusion of
that report:
Schools and districts should only be given funds
when they prove they are ready to use the money effectively.
A review of
the process this past year offers no sign that the process has improved.
CDE’s RFP
included the Grant Review Rubric.
Similar forms have been employed most previous years. http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/2014_tig_rfp
Part I: Proposal Introduction No Points
Part A: Narrative
Section I: LEA Readiness /43
Section II: LEA Commitment and Capacity /56
In-Person Readiness
Interview ________
Total /99
GENERAL COMMENTS: Reviewers, please indicate support for
scoring by including overall strengths
and weaknesses. These comments are used on feedback forms to
applicants.
Strengths:
•
•
Weaknesses:
•
•
Required Changes:
•
•
Recommendation: Fund _____ Fund w/ Changes ____ Do Not Fund
____
Part B of the Grant Review Rubric is a similar form focusing
on the budget. Part of it looks like this:
Part B:
Section I: Needs Assessment and Program Plan /49
Section II: Budget Narrative /23
Electronic Budget No Points
_________
Total /72
Again this year results of these Grant Reviews were not available
on the CDE web site without a request. I
received Part B on all five schools, but then asked if Part A was missing. Lynn Bamberry,
Director
of Competitive Grants and Award at CDE,
explained in an email to me (Oct. 17) of a change:
The decision was made to not to score section A, but rather, to provide
narrative feedback and discuss any questions or concerns in depth at the
in-person readiness meetings which occurred on April 8. The feedback
from Part A needed to be addressed in the final application.
So the scoring only had a maximum of 72 points. The scores for
the five schools that “won” a grant read as follows:
Out of
a total of 72 points
|
Converting
score to a percentage
|
|
Crawford Elementary (Aurora)
|
54
|
75%
|
Ashley Elementary (DPS)
|
46
|
64%
|
Castro Elementary (DPS)
|
46
|
64%
|
Cheltenham (DPS)
|
46
|
64%
|
Fairview Elementary (DPS)
|
44
|
61%
|
AVERAGE
|
236/360
|
65.5%
|
CDE only reviewed seven applications and
ultimately said yes to five of them, in spite of finding their initial
proposals not “sufficient to yield significant school improvements.…” Nic Garcia’s piece in Chalkbeat Colorado on a fifth Denver school that applied, Columbine
Elementary, noted that “… the state rejected Denver Public Schools’ application
for Columbine’s turnaround plan, which it deemed subpar.” (“DPS’s subpar grant application
costs school $1 million, but leader forges ahead,” Sept. 2, 2014). But when the other four Denver schools that
did “win” the grant were given a score of D (61-64%), we again ask if CDE was
too determined to make these grants, regardless of the quality of the
proposals.
Once again, hardly a “competitive grant.”
Whistleblower?
No, simply doing what CDE was asked to do a year ago
It would be presumptuous to call this newsletter “whistleblowing.” I
feel it is just the last in a series of external reports that, frankly, begin
to feel redundant. The effort is not succeeding. Thus it feels appropriate to ask
the state to put a stop to it. No more
reassuring words about how we’ll do better—next time.
Still, the words from David Barbetta in The Denver Post last week felt about right to me. Formerly a financial analyst for DaVita
HealthCare Partners, Barbetta gave this reason for his part in the
whistleblower lawsuit against his former employer. “No one else was standing up and saying this
wasn’t right and it should stop. Everyone seemed to know about it, and no one
seemed to be willing to anything about it.”
CDE staff has been helpful to me as I gathered information for this
newsletter. I worked alone on this—no
other individual or organization is to blame for any mistakes—or certainly for
my conclusion. If CDE would have acted
on the recommendation from A Plus Denver last year to produce its own account
of what has taken place in the schools, I would have felt no need to attempt this
look at the results.
4. Transparency: The public and the
State Board of Education should be aware of school performance. Monitoring and
evaluation tools, including basic information on how much money is being put
into each school, where is it going, and how schools are progressing according
to predetermined benchmarks, would provide needed clarity. (“Colorado’s Turnaround Schools 2010-13: Make
a Wish,”
http://www.aplusdenver.org/_docs/TurnaroundFinal121813.pdf)
“The public and the State Board of Education should be aware….” True? I
hope this is a start.
Another
View, a newsletter by Peter Huidekoper, Jr., represents his
own opinion and is not intended to represent the view of any organization he is
associated with. Comments are
welcome. 303-757-1225 / peterhdkpr@gmail.com
Addendum A
Brief
“Rays of Hope”: a year later, not so much
I did not work on the A Plus Denver report in
2012: 2012 - “Colorado Turnaround Schools – Rays of Hope,” http://www.aplusdenver.org/_docs/FINAL%20TURNAROUND%20DRAFT%2010.10.12.pdf. That year I produced my own examination of
the school results. I saw fewer “rays of hope” than did A Plus.
The 2013 A Plus report, “Colorado’s Turnaround Schools – Make a Wish,” looked
back this way:
After two years of
SIG funding, A+ Denver published “Colorado Turnaround Schools - Rays of Hope,”
a report on the progress of 20 turnarounds in Colorado. The report was
optimistic about some of the investments …
By 2013, however, some of this optimism had dampened, and many of the
schools that had seen a bump had faltered.
Although that 2013 report painted a rather dismal picture of the SIG-funded
turnaround schools in Colorado, it did offer one sentence with encouraging news
at six schools:
We applaud the
schools that are approaching the level of growth necessary growth to move the
majority of kids to proficiency, which are High Tech Early College,
STRIVE-Lake, KIPP Montbello, Mesa Elementary, Smith Renaissance, and Noel
Community Arts High School.
Unfortunately, it appears that in 2013-14 most of these schools did not
continue to improve. The rating on Denver’s School Performance Framework dropped
for three of the five DPS schools:
2013
|
2014
|
||
High
Tech Early College
|
Meets Expectations
|
Accredited on Watch
|
Rating lower
|
STRIVE-Lake
|
Meets Expectations
|
Accredited on Watch
|
Rating lower
|
Noel
Community Arts High School
|
Accredited on Watch
|
Accredited on Priority Watch
|
Rating lower
|
Smith
Renaissance
|
Meets Expectations
|
Meets Expectations
|
same
|
Kipp
Montbello
|
Meets Expectations
|
Distinguished
|
Rating higher
|
The sixth school Mesa Elementary, in Westminster, performed a little
better on TCAP scores in 2014, but showed only average growth: Reading: 49%;
Math: 48%; Writing: 55%.
Addendum B
Monitoring of state efforts by
U.S. Department of Education
The U.S. Department of Education monitors the
states’ SIG efforts. See its report: “Office
of School Turnaround (OST), Monitoring Plan for School Improvement Grant (SIG),
Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2014-http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/monitoring/reports/2013-14sigmonitoringplan.pdf. Its 53 pages hardly touch student
outcomes—it is largely about ensuring “the SIG intervention models are being
implemented consistent with … requirements….” Nevertheless, we see a few
questions on academic achievement:
School-Level
Questions, School Leadership Team
Is the school implementing other efforts to raise
student achievement?
How do you know the changes you and the school have
made this year are working?
School describes additional efforts being made to
raise student achievement
School describes its progress and provides evidence
of progress, for example interim data (p. 29)
Colorado was last monitored in 2012, with a
report written and dated Jan. 10, 2013.
The report criticized CDE’s management of the grant on several fronts,
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/monitoring/reports/coostreview2012.pdf. One larger
finding spoke to CDE not ensuring that the school districts were adequately
monitoring their school or schools receiving SIG funds. (SEA=State Education
Agency; LEAs=Local Education Agencies, or school districts)
Finding: The SEA did not ensure that the LEAs monitor the
schools consistent with the final requirements of the SIG program. Although the SEA and the LEAs are providing
ongoing technical assistance to the schools in the SIG program, the SEA has not
established an expectation, a process, or a timeline for the LEA to monitor
these schools.
Further
action required: The CDE must submit to
ED a plan that will ensure that LEAs are monitoring schools implementing SIG.
The plan must be submitted to ED within 35 days of this receipt of this report.
Three specific findings pertained to what it learned
in visiting a school in Cohort II, Fulton Elementary in Aurora:
Finding
3: At
the time of ED’s monitoring visit, the Fulton Academy of Excellence failed to
meet the requirement of the principal replacement as stated in the SIG final
requirements for the transformation model. Fulton’s principal has been leading
the schools since the 2006-2007 school year. Prior to funding the school, the
CDE was aware that Aurora did not intend to replace Fulton’s principal.
However, prior to making a decision about funding, the CDE allowed to school to
submit evidence as to why the principal was a dynamic leader and should not be
replaced as part of the reforms.
Further
action required: The CDE must submit to
ED evidence that it has reviewed the progress of all schools that received SIG funds
to implement the transformation and turnaround model to ensure that principals
were hired consistent with the SIG requirement….
This particularly sharp criticism of the
implementation of the grant for Fulton Academy in Aurora led to the suspension
of federal funding for that school’s turnaround work.
LEA Name
|
School Name
|
Description of how
funds were or will be used
|
Amount of Remaining
Funds
|
Aurora Public Schools
|
Fulton Elementary
School
|
“Remaining funds will
be added to FY 2012 funds and awarded to Cohort #5. These funds have been de-obligated due to
USDE monitoring finding.”
|
$1,136,025
|
(From CDE’s application
to U.S. Department of Education for 2014- and how funds will be used. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/apps2013/coapp13.pdf, p. 7.)
In hindsight, CDE might have seen two other red
flags when it reviewed the proposal from Aurora Public Schools for Fulton
Elementary.
1.
The budget request was
for $4,187,085 over three years. CDE’s
Grant Review Rubric told APS: “The overall budget will need to be reduced to
$1,136,100.” (http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/fedprograms/dl/ti_sitig_aurorafultontigapplication.pdf, p. 59). A request
for $4 million for one elementary school, when the entire state that year was
awarded less than $7.5 million for its School Improvement Grant?
2.
CDE’s Grant Review Rubric
scored the application 85/143 points, which is 59% –a failing grade. As A Plus Denver’s 2013 report noted,
applications with even lower scores have been approved (RE High School in Mesa
Elementary in Mesa 51 RE -57%; Westminster – to 5 elementary schools– 56%;
Spann Elementary in Pueblo 60 – 49%; and Scott Carpenter Middle School in
Westminster-47%). In that context, perhaps
59% looked pretty good. But looking
back, perhaps it deserved the F.
Addendum C
Four Turnaround Models – Cohorts I - V
– 2010-11 to 2014-15
Turnaround
|
Transformation
|
Restart
|
Close
|
Total
|
|
Cohort I
|
7*
|
9**
|
1*
|
3
|
19
|
Cohort II
|
1
(Trevista in DPS)
|
8
|
0
|
0
|
9
|
Cohort III
|
3 (Ford
and West*** in DPS; and Sheridan Middle)
|
3
|
6
|
||
Cohort IV
|
0
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
5
|
Cohort V
|
5
|
5
|
|||
TOTAL
|
11
|
29
|
1
|
4
|
45
|
*Lake Middle was seen as both a turnaround and a restart (of the Lake International
Program) so it is counted twice here; total is still 19 schools in all.
**Transformation at Montbello and Noel in the end led to the closure or
phase out of the existing schools and starting up several new schools. So while “transformation” may have been the
designated model when the application was first approved by CDE, it turned out
to be quite different work.
***R-5 High School in Mesa
County; Schecnk, Smith, and West in DPS.
“Transformation” at West—as with Montbello and North—may also be a
misnomer. As West wrote in its SIG
application:
“Two other DPS
schools are pursuing this same ‘phase in’ and ‘phase out’ approach in a way
that is already showing marked gains. Therefore, the best school intervention
model for West is turnaround. There is a bit of a classification challenge when
it comes to West, but since Montbello, which is utilizing the same approach and
receiving TIG funds, is considered a turnaround. [sic] West is also considered
a turnaround.” (http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/dl/ti_a_stig_DPS.pdf,
p. 39)
Addendum D
Lester Arnold High School in Adams 14
Lester Arnold’s application for the School Improvement Grant included
“measurable goals” for TCAP for 2013-14 – such as the percentage of students
achieving proficiency in Reading (26%), in Math (4%), and Writing (11%). Perhaps as important to the school are other
“measurable goals,” which of course are not related to TCAP results. For example:
·
It is expected that
students meet and sustain an 80 percent attendance rate. Attendance will be monitored daily, and
those who fall below 80 percent will be approached for further interventions.
·
Students will make measurable
progress towards completing course credits by completing course recovery units
with an 80 percent success rate.
·
Students will make
satisfactory progress with a minimum 80% on course assessments and 80%
attendance rate in selected work-readiness and electives courses.
·
Attendance/truancy: 50%
higher attendance among students with re-engagement plans, compared to students
and families eligible for the program, but who did not take advantage.
·
Drop-out: 50%
re-enrollment among students and families who develop a re-engagement plan.
[1] Another View #55: “What to do
about ‘fixing’ underperforming schools? Tell Feds we have learned a lot … about
what NOT to do” (June 25, 2009). My final sentence of that newsletter stated:
“Before Colorado should receive millions of dollars for something we have not
done well, we ought to think hard about what we have learned over the past
twenty years.”
AV#86: “One last swing – before
another $10 million is misspent? The
School Improvement Grant to DPS and Pueblo City 60” (Aug. 23, 2012).
AV#89: “$14.8 million over
three-years to turnaround efforts at six DPS schools – Are grants for year
three (2012-13) warranted?” (Oct. 4, 2012).
AV#90: “On NOT TURNING AROUND
SCHOOLS: Too Quick to Celebrate, Too Eager to Point Fingers…” (Oct. 29, 2012).
AV#92, “Regional economic development works. Why not a regional recovery school
district?” (Jan. 1, 2013).
AV#109, “Why turnaround schools do not turn around - One reason struggling
schools fail to make real progress: Aurora Central High as a case study,” (Feb.
12, 2014).
[2] 2011–“Background - Turning around low-achieving
schools in Colorado,” http://www.aplusdenver.org/_docs/TurnaroundReport11111.pdf.
2013—“Colorado’s Turnaround Schools 2010-13: Make a Wish,” http://www.aplusdenver.org/_docs/TurnaroundFinal121813.pdf. See “message from CEO” Van Schoales: “Two years ago,
A+ Denver sounded an alarm, claiming that there had been little selectivity,
transparency, accountability, or most importantly, evidence that the oversight
body was using past experience to inform its award-making…. Now, based on the
percentage of students reaching proficiency, we find that nearly a third of
Cohort I, II, and III schools are doing worse than they were pre-funding….”
[3] CDE tells me that it “does have
plans to produce a formal report on the impact of Title I Improvement funding
in 2015.”
[4] I have not included Lester Arnold High School in this
review as it is an Alternative Education Campus. I appreciate that the data for such a school
needs to be reviewed differently given the high percentage of students who have
previously dropped out and/or have struggled in other schools. (Lester Arnold’s application—http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/tigadams14—noted
that less than 2% of its 10th graders were proficient in math, its truancy rate
was close to 20%, and its dropout rate was 24.3%; in this context, it is
understandable that evaluating the effectiveness of the program requires different
tools than TCAP, ACT, and similar standard measures. Of course it is troubling to see the percent
of 10th graders proficient in math drop from
5.3% in 2013 to 3.4% in 2014; still, CDE and Adams 14 will have to look
much more deeply to see if the school is achieving its goals for this
grant. Addendum D lists a few of Lester Arnold’s “measurable goals” in its
application for the School Improvement Grant.)
Neither do I include the
fifth school granted TIG funds for 2013-14, Vilas Online High School, as it was
awarded $20,995 to help fund its closure. (Comment:
Which, at that cost, let’s admit, hardly required a federal grant!)
[5] Tiered Intervention Grant, 2013 - Cohort IV - Approved
Plans and Budgets, http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/tieredinterventiongrantresources.
[6]From
my August 11 email to the Office of School and District Performance at CDE: “…As you know, I've been
asking about the Cohort V schools much of the summer. I have to believe you
notified them early enough in the summer so they had time to do the needed
planning before school started. Now that school is starting, I will ask again - my fifth request I believe - if can you [sic] make the
information available as to which schools received the funds and the amount of
the grant.”
No comments:
Post a Comment