AV#128 - Paris Elementary School – 2012-2014 - a narrative

A story reveals more than statistics.  If true, this time I offer a story—the narrative of a school struggling over a couple of years.  A short story—pages 4 through 10; I hope you will give it a try.  Elements of a sad Chekhov tale here: “His stories rarely resolve in highly dramatic, epiphanic endings. And by largely eschewing this strategy they seem to refer us back to their own often unsensational, interior details. There, we are to reconsider moments of overlooked decisiveness and issue and possibly see mankind more clearly” (Richard Ford).  Using many of the school’s own words about itself (and yes, some statistics), a narrative like this might help us see more clearly the desperate state of our chronically low-performing schools—and move us to action.

An Open Letter to the State Board of Education and the Colorado Department of Education:

Accountability clock chimes louder for 30 schools by Todd Engdahl Schools entering 5th year of lowest ratings face state scrutiny, action What can happen to low-rated schools    “An outside panel of experts known as the State Review Panel will review struggling schools and recommend to the State Board management by public or private entity other than the district, different entity in case of charters, conversion to charter, granted innovation status or closed or charter revoked.”    “The board can’t actually order an individual school closed or otherwise changed. Instead, it will request a district to, for instance, close a school. If the district declines to do so, the board can in turn down knock the district’s accreditation down one level.” http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/12/10/accountability-clock-chimes-louder-for-30-schools/#.VNVec_nF_Ys For more details on SB 163, see bottom of page 2.

You have a huge responsibility on your shoulders as we approach July 1, 2015, when 30 schools[1] will enter their fifth year on Priority Improvement or Turnaround.  According to the Education Accountability Act of 2009 (SB 163), strongly backed by both parties[2] and signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter, you will soon need to make some tough decisions.  Lawsuits may follow, we hear, should you take any of the dramatic steps allowed by the law.  We think of former superintendent Michael Bennet’s tortured effort to close Denver’s Manual High for a year—for which he is still vilified by some in the school’s  neighborhood—and suspect that, no matter what you do, you can expect heavy criticism.

                                             

I wish you courage.

I also wish you to follow the story of one school – actually not yet on year five “on the clock”—Paris Elementary in Aurora. It shows why many of us are proud Republicans and Democrats came together in 2009 to pass SB 163, and why we believe it offers you, above all, an opportunity—some call it “a moral obligation”—to change the fate for students in several low-performing schools.

“A moral obligation”?  An overstatement?

Two analogies, first, to underline why this might well be no exaggeration.

1.       Intervention abroad – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria … Iraq

“There is nothing like a few beheadings to put things in perspective.”

Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post, Oct. 28, 2014

     “In his Aug. 7 address to the nation, Obama said he was also acting to rescue thousands of Yezidis – members of an obscure , ancient religious sect—who were driven to the top of Mount Sinjar, 150 miles west or Erbil, and surrounded by ISIS.  Some U.S. air strikes, along with airdrops of food and water, were designed to prevent a possible ‘act of genocide’ against the Yezidis, Obama said.

    “The Yezidi plight offered a compelling humanitarian rational for action….”

(“Into Kurdistan,” Time, Aug. 25, 2014)

A war-weary nation hesitates to intervene. But when it became clear the Unites States military could rescue the innocent, when the brutality pricked our conscience, the decency of the American people demanded a swift change to our policy on the Islamic State.  We heard a cry for help, we agreed that we could not stay on the sidelines any longer—and we saved lives.

I fully understand why we remain reluctant. We don’t want to play the Heavy, the Arrogant Authority, the World Policeman; we don’t want to be the rash or cocky America (“It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” Donald Rumsfeld). We still bleed over that invasion….

But to step in, last summer, and now—most Americans will say: the decent choice is to act.

The state board of education sees a school in dire straits … and here, too, there is hesitation.  Similarly, the Colorado Department of Education, the local school district – each pausing … reluctant to intervene …  asking: Maybe we don’t have all the facts.  This new principal—isn’t he/she exactly the right person to turn this school around? Not all is hopeless. Can’t we just give it another year, or two, or ….

As I hope the narrative here shows, some schools are almost begging for help.  Almost … but too proud. On the top of their own Mount Sinjar. Keenly aware of their plight.  Wondering if anyone cares….     

                       (con’t on p. 3)

from the Colorado Education Accountability Act of 2009, CDE’s website (4) The commissioner may assign the state review panel to critically evaluate a public school's priority improvement plan and shall assign the state review panel to critically evaluate a public school's turnaround plan. Based on its evaluation, the state review panel shall report to the commissioner and the state board recommendations concerning: (a) Whether the public school's leadership is adequate to implement change to improve results; (b) Whether the public school's infrastructure is adequate to support school improvement; (and more). (5) (a) If a public school fails to make adequate progress under its turnaround plan or continues to operate under a priority improvement or turnaround plan for a combined total of five consecutive school years, the commissioner shall assign the state review panel to critically evaluate the public school's performance and determine whether to recommend:                    Followed by four options - http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/sb_163_052013

(con’t from p. 2)

Let’s make this more personal.  A child enters kindergarten at Paris Elementary in 2011-12.  The school’s results decline that year.  As they do again in 2012-13 during first grade. As they do—dramatically so—during second grade.  (See SPF ratings, p. 9.) That boy, that girl, is now in third grade. See last year’s abysmal third grade scores, Addendum B.  What hope can we offer, before this child’s K-5 years become a complete disaster? Aren’t there times—rare, but necessary—when the decent choice is to intervene? 

I know: not analogous, No bloodshed; no beheadings.  Not exactly life or death stories of survival.

Still, I hope the narrative here will suggest: time to act.

2.       Bully or bystander?

Since Columbine, many Colorado schools, including the charter where I taught 10 years ago, have devoted considerable time to address bullying.  The workshops we attended emphasized how critical it is for all of us—adults and students—to see ourselves as bystanders: we can either tolerate the meanness we see a student, a classmate, receive, or we step in and speak up.  Often quietly, sometimes in more obvious ways.  To intervene on behalf of the victim. 

The phrase—“a moral obligation”—certainly comes to mind.

A state board, a state department, a school district—those of you “in power”—might worry about being the bully in stepping in to close a school.  Again, a justifiable fear of being too swift to judge, of being that heavy club battering those educators who are struggling hard “to turn things around” in their school.

Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (2015) by Robert D. Putnam

But I believe it is more useful if you see yourselves as the bystander.  You know who suffers in our chronically low-performing schools: the students.  Hence the responsibility—to act.  After years of patience, no time to stand on the sidelines and watch – and hope for the best.   

Requiring intervention, for the kids’ sake.

Paris Elementary School   -   Aurora Public Schools

Location: Just west of Peoria St. (and University of Colorado Hospital), just north of 16^th St.     

Let’s call Paris OUR school.  The narrative that follows gains in power if we imagine this is OUR SCHOOL, in OUR COMMUNITY, (I borrow here from the title of the new book by Robert Putnam) with OUR kids enrolled there.  We begin with a few demographics.

Our school has 486 students enrolled as of Oct. 1, 2014.

Pre-k	Full Day k	1	2	3	4	5
25	76	82	81	82	79	61

95% of our K-5 students are eligible for free or reduced lunch.

K-12 count	Free Lunch	Reduced	Not eligible	Free and Reduced	% Free and Reduced
461	420	20	17	440	95.4%

74% of our students are Hispanic or Latino and 17.5 % are Black or African American.

Preschool - 5 count	Hispanic or Latino	Black or African American	White	Two or More	Asian	American Indian or Alaskan Native	Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
486	360	85	12	12	7	5	5
	74%	17.5%

from the web site for Paris Elementary http://paris.aurorak12.org/ 

go to its - DATA WALL - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2-JKTfrfy3nc0pkaTJHWlhfbUU/edit

No data there on student performance.

Paris Elementary – A narrative - 2012 to 2014

2012-13

The state of Colorado’s School Performance Framework, released in the fall of 2012, placed Paris Elementary as a school on Priority Improvement for the first time.

Colorado’s School Performance Framework – Paris Elementary

	Overall rating	Points Earned	Academic Achievement	Academic Growth	Academic Growth Gaps
2011	Improvement Plan	48.4%	Does Not Meet	Approaching	Approaching
2012	Priority Improvement	42.0%	Does Not Meet	Approaching	Approaching

Signs of trouble – Staff survey – 2012-2013

Before the 2012-13 school year ended, the faculty participated in Aurora Public School’s Licensed Staff Climate Survey. It gave strong signals that something had changed that year, for the worse, in the minds of a number of the staff.  The percentage who DISAGREED with the following statements jumped significantly from 2012 to 2013 – and revealed a major problem with morale and trust.

                                                                                                                                                             % Disagree

                                                                                                                                                2012         2013       Change

4. I believe APS has set a clear direction for improving student achievement.     From 11.8% to  37.5%  - UP 25.7%

8. I trust the people who make district decisions that affect me.                            From 35.3% to  50.0% - UP 14.7%

9. I am given opportunities to influence the decisions made by the district.        From 52.9% to  66.7% - UP 13.7%

10.  There is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect within APS.                    From 29.4% to  43.8% - UP  14.3%

19. I trust the people who make school decisions that affect me.                          From   5.9% to  25.0%  -  UP 19.1%

22. There is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect between building administrators and staff in our building. 

                                                                                                                                             From 23.5% to  43.8% - UP 20.2%

26. Decisions made at my school are based on the best interests of students.    From 11.8% to  31.3% - UP 19.5%

32. I have opportunities to participate in school planning and decision making.   From 5.9% to  25.0% - UP 19.1%

36. Building professional development has provided me with strategies that I have incorporated into my instructional delivery methods.  (Question not used previous year)                                                                        40%

45. I experience a professional atmosphere for staff working at my school/site.   From 5.9% to  25.0%  - UP 19.1%

2013-14

The following year, in the fall of 2013, Colorado’s School Performance Framework placed Paris Elementary as a school on Priority Improvement for the second time.  Its overall score declined again.

Colorado’s School Performance Framework – Paris Elementary

	Overall rating	Points Earned	Academic Achievement	Academic Growth	Academic Growth Gaps
2011	Improvement Plan	48.4%	Does Not Meet	Approaching	Approaching
2012	Priority Improvement	42.0%	Does Not Meet	Approaching	Approaching
2013	Priority Improvement	40.5%	Does Not Meet	Approaching	Approaching

With this rating Paris had to complete and submit a Unified Improvement Plan by January of 2014.  The quotes below are from the final version; although it was not posted on the Colorado Department of Education’s website until April, I assume it reflects how the school viewed itself, its recent history, and its current challenges that fall and winter of the 2013-14 school year.  It is 38 pages. Take a look - https://cedar2.cde.state.co.us/documents/UIP2015/0180-6728.pdf.  I admire its candor. It must have been hard to look in the mirror this way and acknowledge, repeatedly, the disappointing results.  The two most common words: no—and not.  Here are just a few highlights—enough, I believe, to make you hear a school in pain.

Paris Elementary – Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan – 2013-14

We were slow to get the Paris Coaching Team philosophically and logistically on the same page. This philosophical misalignment made progress slow as we were trying to build agreement. (12)

Paris also had many outside factors that impacted the start of the school year. There were several community tragedies/stressful events - Aurora Theater shooter living directly across the street from Paris; families evacuated; apartment fire & Paris was the Red Cross evacuation shelter, murder & body being discovered on Paris’ block, car crashing into house - that were in the immediate Paris neighborhood. These events lead (sic) to evacuations, loss of power for several days, and ongoing police/fire/media attention. These events impacted our ability to get things started quickly in the 1st quarter.

… Our professional development focused primarily on teacher planning and we were not taking teachers through the whole teaching and learning cycle. We were not hitting evaluating, analyzing and the how part of teaching (sic). In addition, when we moved to small group reading, we lost the power of team collaboration. (13)

…  Professional development lacked the clarity and connection that teachers needed to support ELL. We did not mirror good instructional practices in the delivery of our professional development by modeling, thinking aloud, providing examples, specific look fors (sic) and connection to language development. (14)

                                                                                               (Bold mine throughout these quotes from the UIP)

Major Improvement  Strategy

The UIP asks schools to present their major improvement strategy for each of the “Priority Performance Challenges” on a host of categories: Academic Achievement, Academic Growth, and Academic Growth Gaps – on all three subject matters: reading, writing, and math. On this section of the UIP, Paris showed little effort: the following two sentences were given—11 times—as the answer for each category (pp. 18-23). (These are exact quotes.):

·         If teachers adapt instruction for all students then the quality and quantity of productive language (oral and written) output in all content areas will increase.

·         If Paris students, staff and parents collaborate to develop respectful classroom, school and home environments then positive and productive learning behaviors for all students will be established.

Paris listed its performance goals for 2012-13, and then, under:

“Was the target met? How close was the school to meeting the target?”

the school stated, again and again, that it had not met the goal (pp. 13-14).

Achievement – Proficient on TCAP

Growth – Goal: to see more than 50% of its students catching up

Reading Grades 3-5 3rd: 37% (No, -4%) 4th: 20% (No, -20%) 5th: 29% (No, -11%) Writing 3rd: 22% (No, -9%) 4th: 15% (No, -20%) 5th: 20% (No, -20%)

Reading No-our combined median growth percentile overall was 42% for reading (4th grade-28%; 5th grade-48%).  For students “catching up” Paris was at 40%      (-20% from goal). Writing No-our combined median growth percentile overall was 40% for writing (4th grade-18%; 5th grade-65%).  For students “catching up” Paris was at 44%       (-16% from goal). Math No-our combined median growth percentile overall was 37% for math (4th grade-23%; 5th grade-62%).  For students “catching up” Paris was at 38%                (-22% from goal).

There are too many disheartening statements to include them all.   Here are just a few:

Achievement: Fourth grade students show a decline in reading CSAP/TCAP over 3 years.  The data also shows that the cohort of 3^rd to 4^th grade has lost 5% proficiency each year.

There is a significant drop in proficiency between kindergarten and 1^st grade. (p.37)

Growth Summary: We have been below the state average in Median Growth Percentile for the past three with one exception in 2009 for writing .... When we look at the students needing to “catch up” we need to increase our growth significantly in order for the student to reach proficiency within three years. (p.9)

Growth: Grade 4 - 5 students in the catch up category are not making sufficient growth in reading, writing, or math. This is notable because their MGP is significantly below the state expectation.…  On average, only 44% of students are making one year's growth in text level for one year's instruction in reading.  (p. 37)

Verification of Root Cause:  … when analyzing reading, writing and math data, in Grades K-2, along with the Instructional Support Team referrals, CLT concluded that K-2 teachers have not been identifying students who are not making appropriate growth, which has resulted in interventions not having been put in place to close these gaps.

A data trend is that the number of office referrals from the classrooms is significantly higher than referrals from any other location. This is notable because students are not demonstrating learning behaviors but off task behaviors which results in being removed from the classroom. (p. 11)

Winter 2014

Application for federal funds for improvement – exclusively for schools in the bottom 5%

  

That winter the Colorado Department of Education listed the 25 Title I low-performing schools in the state (bottom 5%) eligible for federal funds, the Tiered Intervention Grant.  Paris was one of the 25 —along with three other elementary schools in Aurora Public Schools: Crawford, Sable, and Wheeling (http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/2014_tig_rfp). Part A of the application was due March 27, Part B on April 30.

In the first four years of this federal grant CDE approved of 36 out of 38 school applications.  A Plus Denver, among others, has criticized the low bar established. Its 2013 report, “Colorado’s Turnaround Schools – 2010-2013, Make a Wish,” stated:

We have raised questions in the past about whether the state’s selection process was competitive enough and whether schools and districts have been held accountable for results…. 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.

It is telling that Paris became one of the few schools whose application did not earn the federal grant.

Spring 2014

The story behind this failure are murky, but here is what I understand. Paris and Crawford began to develop a proposal together.  It is unclear how much Paris was involved in discussing and writing the application (see concern expressed by a member of the faculty, next page).  In most previous years CDE had scored the applications. Not this time. Instead, as Lynn Bamberry, Director of Competitive Grants and Awards, explained:

The decision was made … 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. (Email to me, 10/17/14)

Bamberry sent me the feedback from Part A. It told Aurora: “please address the following in your final application,” including: “Provide clarity on whether Crawford and Paris will be pursuing pilot/ innovation status and timeline for this.”

What happened then?  The following is from the minutes of the APS Board of Education a month later. 

May 6, 2014 

(Board member Cathy) Wildman asked about low achieving district schools listed under the 2014 Tier Intervention Grant (TIG) for eligible schools.  (Superintendent Rico) Munn has redirected resources at turnaround or priority improvement schools. He shared that staff is working with a broader group of at-risk schools, adding that RMC audits were conducted at five schools to pinpoint key issues.  He noted that the district has applied for TIG grants at Paris and Crawford. … (Board member Mary) Lewis asked if TIG grant requirements included restructuring within the building.  (Chief academic officer John) Youngquist replied yes.  He added that restructuring will not be required at Crawford or Paris, noting that the principal position at Paris is currently posted and this was the first year for the current principal at Crawford.  Wildman asked if staff members at Paris and Crawford were being included in conversations.  Youngquist shared that staff members at Paris were initially involved in the TIG grant application process.  He noted that site student achievement directors will provide an update to employees at Paris and Crawford.  Munn noted that both staffs were heavily involved in RMC audits.

http://boe.aurorak12.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2014/06/public06_03_14boeagenda1.pdf

MY COMMENT: Those minutes show that the application would come from Paris as well as Crawford. It is not clear, though, how “restructuring” was defined or understood by Lewis and Youngquist.  By definition the federal dollars in TIG call for TURNAROUND or TRANSFORMATION, unless the school is to be closed. The meaning above merely suggests the replacement of the principal.)

A week later, a teacher from Paris spoke to the school board, in part, it seems to offer her account of how little the staff and parents at Paris Elementary had been involved in the TIG application.

MY COMMENT: If her observations were accurate, they revealed that Paris had many deeper issues to address than how to complete a successful TIG application.

May 13, 2014

APS School Board meeting - Opportunity for Audience

    Gwynn Moore, elementary media tech teacher, thanked Wildman and (board member Dan) Jorgensen for sharing concerns with the Board regarding the TIG application process at Paris Elementary School.

    Moore indicated that the principal resigned in March, and prior to spring break, the principal announced that the school was applying for a TIG grant. She noted that the announcement of the TIG grant was provided to parents a week before staff received notification. She expressed that staff met with the site student achievement director and grant staff for five minutes, adding that a follow up email was forwarded to staff after March 27 to request input as to what is and is not working at Paris. She noted that the email was sent to staff after it was discovered that the Board had already signed off on the initial TIG grant application.

    Moore voiced concerns regarding the submission of the TIG grant without prior discussion with staff and parents. She expressed that the school is currently dismantled and approximately 50 percent of employees are leaving the building. She noted that two rounds of principal interviews have been scheduled, but the second round was recently canceled. She expressed that one candidate did a walkthrough of the building, but was not selected in the final round. She emphasized that staff members are at the end of their ropes and are currently left with five student contact days with no principal or TOSA and a number of staff vacancies.

    Moore provided the Board with a handout of the TIG grant that the district provided to employees. She noted that she is currently one of four teachers with more than two years of instructional experience in the building. She emphasized that staff would need one or two days before the start of school to review goals and the overall direction for the school year, but does not know if this will occur.                                                                                                                                                                  (Bold mine)

From minutes of APS Board of Education, May 13, 2014

http://boe.aurorak12.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2014/06/public06_03_14boeagenda1.pdf

Late spring/early summer - 2014

When Aurora Public Schools submitted its “Feedback responses” to CDE’s comments and questions, the application for TIG funds had become a request for Crawford only. No mention of Paris on any of those three pages (Adams-Arapahoe 28-J, Part A Feedback).

MY COMMENT:  Somewhere in this time period—in the spring or early summer—word apparently reached the two schools that CDE would not accept an application with Paris.  (“In addition to Columbine, Paris Elementary in Aurora was not funded.” Email to me from Lynn Bamberry, 10/17/14)

So Paris became one of two schools that year, and one of 4 out of 45 over a five-year span, whose application CDE did not fund. (Last fall, in AV#121, “More federal dollars to Colorado for the School Improvement Grant?”, I spoke of the other application that didn’t pass muster with CDE [3].)

Thus a school in desperate need of additional resources to turn around its performance failed to put together a sound application.  If Gwynn Moore’s account at the May 13 school board meeting fairly captures some of the turmoil at Paris Elementary at the end of the school year, little wonder if CDE found the request from Paris unsatisfactory.  If CDE thought—here is case where even a major grant will not be enough to help, this school is more dysfunctional than it realizes—it probably did well NOT to award Paris a dime. 

Still, it meant the troubled school started 2014-15 without any additional grant, with a new principal, with perhaps the largest faculty turnover in the district.  When school opened in mid-August, the teachers at Paris must have felt overwhelmed by the task before them.

Fall 2014

They were probably not surprised, though, when the state released its 2013-14 SPF ratings last fall, Paris was again on Priority Improvement—for the third straight year.  Even that looks generous: CDE’s School Performance Framework usually assigns schools with less than 37% points its lowest category, Turnaround.  (See Addendum B for grade by grade TCAP results, and Addendum C to compare Paris with three other low-performing schools in Aurora.  Two of them earned scores comparable to Paris on the state SPF – Jewell (36% pts) and Fletcher Community (32.5% pts) –and both earned a rating of Turnaround.) Once again, Paris was compelled to reflect on its struggles and develop a new Unified Improvement Plan.

Colorado’s School Performance Framework – Paris Elementary

	Overall rating	Points Earned	Academic Achievement	Academic Growth	Academic Growth Gaps
2011	Improvement Plan	48.4%	Does Not Meet	Approaching	Approaching
2012	Priority Improvement	42.0%	Does Not Meet	Approaching	Approaching
2013	Priority Improvement	40.5%	Does Not Meet	Approaching	Approaching
2014	Priority Improvement	33.0%	Does Not Meet	Does Not Meet	Does Not Meet

Meanwhile, Crawford Elementary, the Aurora school that did win the federal grant for improvement ($1,051,098 over three years, 2014-15 to 2016-17) had climbed out of Priority Improvement and had its strongest performance in five years.[4]  Evidence that significant improvement is possible.  But OUR school - Paris Elementary - has moved in the opposite direction.

Spring 2015

On Priority Improvement—with a 33% score—Paris and its district might (at long last?) feel real urgency this school year to bring about major change.  A recent APS school board meeting tells us of two visits by the superintendent.  Evidence of progress?  Test results for 2015 will not be available for many months; furthermore, with the new assessments now in place, scores this spring cannot be compared to 2014.  For this reason, CDE and the State Review Panel (see box) will need to take an especially close look at the school’s newest UIP.

From the Summary of SB 09-163 (Accountability Alignment) Among the main purposes of the bill: ·         “Creating a fairer, clearer and more effective cycle of support and intervention.” ·         “Enhancing state, district and school oversight of improvement efforts.” State Review Panel “3. Enhance oversight of improvement strategies for low-performing districts and schools supported by a State Review panel appointed by commissioner •     Creates authority for the Commissioner to appoint a State Review Panel to evaluate district and school improvement  strategies and make recommendations on needed interventions” http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/accountability/ downloads/updatedaccountabilityalignmentbill2pagesummary.pdf

The State Review Panel reviews the UIPs and is expected to recommend “to the Commissioner and the State Board of Education about actions to be taken with the lowest performing schools and districts.” I served on the panel last year and reviewed four schools.  Little to go on, I realize. But while I respected the process and the criteria we were to consider, in the end the ratings given to two of “my schools” seemed overly generous.

CDE has a new external partner to coordinate the panel’s work this year, and site visits will be made to several schools to bring a deeper understanding of their progress.  The increasingly high stakes involved can make a member of the panel—along with CDE and the state board—fearful of being the bully. 

Again, I would say: be the bystander.  Evaluate the school with that third grader in mind.  Is the school turning a corner for him or her? If not, a low rating—and intervention—may be the kindest act of all. And if you think Aurora Public Schools is capable of effective intervention, keep in mind that APS is in equally grave trouble.  Accredited by the state on a Priority Improvement Plan for the fourth straight year; its 2014 rating reached a new low in 2014, only 44.7% points earned; the percentage of APS schools on Priority Improvement and Turnaround status more than doubled last year, from 14.9% in 2013 to 38.4% to 2014.  (http://boe.aurorak12.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2014/08/final08_19_14boeminutes_33.pdf).  Paris is just one of 18 district schools now on Priority Improvement and Turnaround (p. 36). No, APS is not the answer. 

The law gave you the authority.  The opportunity.  No need to wait until year 5.

From “School Turnarounds in Colorado”

“Turning around a persistently failing school is enormously difficult work….  It is particularly important, therefore, to track leading indicators of success or failure to learn whether a school’s turnaround is on track early in the effort…. Even more important, however, is a commitment to act on the data that those indicators reveal. Under the EAA, Colorado’s state board has authority to intervene in a school at any point up to and including year five of its improvement effort if it fails to show sufficient progress toward state performance standards.” (Bold mine)                                                                              

-  by Julie Kowal and Joe Ableidinger, Public Impact, for the Donnell-Kay Foundation. CDE’s website http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/fedprograms/dl/ti_sitig_schturnarounds.pdf

As I said before, I wish you courage.

Another View, a newsletter by Peter Huidekoper, 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

The 30 schools entering fifth consecutive year of low performance.

·         Adams 12-Five Star Schools – Thornton Elementary

·         Adams County 14 (Commerce City) – Adams City High

·         Aguilar – Aguilar Junior-Senior High

·         Aurora – Aurora Central High

·         Colorado Springs 11 – Jack Swigert Aerospace Academy

·         DPS – Colorado High School Charter

·         DPS – Escuela Tlatelolco (the school has indicated it will convert to private)

·         DPS – P.R.E.P.

·         DPS – Trevista ECE-8 at Horace Mann

·         DPS – West High

·         Douglas – Colorado Cyber School

·         Douglas – HOPE Online elementary

·         Douglas – HOPE Online middle

·         Greeley – Franklin Middle

·         Greeley – John Evans Middle

·         Huerfano – Peakview School

·         Ignacio – Ignacio Elementary

·         Julesburg – Insight School of Colorado

·         Lake County – Lake County Intermediate

·         Mapleton – Welby Montessori

·         Montezuma-Cortez – Kemper Elementary

·         Pueblo 60 – Benjamin Franklin Elementary

·         Pueblo 60 – Bessemer Elementary

·         Pueblo 60 – Heroes Middle

·         Pueblo 60 – Irving Elementary

·         Pueblo 60 – Risley International Academy of Innovation

·         Pueblo 60 – Roncalli STEM Academy

·         Rocky Ford – Jefferson Intermediate

·         South Conejos – Antonito Middle

·         Westminster – M. Scott Carpenter Middle

http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/12/10/accountability-clock-chimes-louder-for-30-schools/#.VQRRPI7F9qU

Addendum B

Paris Elementary - TCAP - % proficient/advanced - 2014

	State	APS- District	Paris Elementary	% below state average
Reading	70.5%	46.2%	19%	-51.5%
Writing	53.4%	32.7%	17.1%	-36.3%
Math	69%	47.4%	27.7%	-41.3%

https://edx.cde.state.co.us/SchoolView/DataCenter/reports.jspx?_afrWindowMode=0&_afrLoop=267042065458677&_adf.ctrl-state=ib0n8jo9t_

Third Grade

MY COMMENT: The declining 3rd grade scores over these three years is a big concern.

Scores declined dramatically in all three subjects from 2013 to 2014.

	Reading	Writing	Math
2012	25.4%	21.1%	36.6%
2013	36.7%	21.5%	55.7%
2014	12.9%	14.1%	26%
	Way down	Down a lot	Way down
Target	30	30	36

Fourth grade (Improvement in all three subjects.)

	Reading	Writing	Math
2012	20.3%	6.8%	25.4%
2013	20%	14.7%	32.1%
2014	25.35%	15.5%	40.85%
	Up	Up a bit	Up 8+
Target	47	42	61

Fifth grade (Decline in reading and math, 2013 to 2014. Decline in all subjects since 2012.)

	Reading	Writing	Math
2012	24.4%	23.1%	33.3%
2013	29.2%	20%	22.4%
2014	18.75%	21.3%	17.5%
	Down a lot	Up a bit	Down
Target	40	32	46

TARGETS – In its UIP last year, Paris Elementary set nine targets, one for each discipline in each of the three grades.  It fell short of its goal for 3^rd grade math and 5^th grade writing by 10 points; it was 15-25 points short of its goal in most other categories.

OVERALL, in all three grades, in the three subjects, over 80% are not proficient in reading or writing. From 2012 to 2014, there has been a positive trend in math at the 4^th grade level, but a steady decline in fifth grade, so that last year over 80% were not proficient as they ended their last year at Paris.

It did not reach the STATE AVERAGE (50%) Median Growth Percentile* in any of the three disciplines, but it is especially troubling to see growth under 40% in writing and math.

Median Growth Percentile (for close to 130 students)

-Reading – 46%

-Writing -  38%

-Math – 36%

(http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014-tcap-growth-database/)

*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)

Addendum C

From ColoradoSchoolGrades  - 2014   -  http://coloradoschoolgrades.com/

4 elementary schools/programs in Aurora Public Schools

	Paris Elementary	Fletcher Community	Vista Peak P-8	Jewell Elementary
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
Overall Grade	F	F	F	F
Ranking	964 of 1101	984 of 1101	973 of 1101	972 of 1101
ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY
Overall Academic Proficiency	F	F	D	D
Reading	F	F	D	D+
Math	F	F	D-	F
English	F	F	D	D
Science	-	-	-	-
ACADEMIC GROWTH
Overall Academic Growth	D	F	D	F
Reading	C-	C-	C-	D
Math	D	F	D	F
English	C-	F	D	F
Science	-	-	-	-
STUDENT POPULATION
ELL Overall Academic Growth	D	D	C	C
Low Income	91%	93%	47%	66%
American Indian or Alaskan Native	2%	2%	1%	2%
Asian	1%	2%	2%	3%
Black or African American	11%	12%	7%	27%
Hispanic or Latino	81%	77%	44%	41%
White	2%	4%	39%	19%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	0%	1%	1%	1%
Two or More	3%	1%	7%	7%

Colorado School Performance Framework 2013-14  -  % Points Earned, Rating, Year “on clock”

Paris	Paris Elementary	Fletcher Community	Vista Peak P-8	Jewell Elementary
% points earned (out of 100)	33%	32.5%	45%	36.3%
Rating	Priority Improvement	Turnaround	Priority Improvement	Turnaround
Year on Accountability Clock	3	1	1	1

---

[1] The 30 schools on year 5 are listed in Addendum A.  Each has its own story.  I have chosen to look at a school “only” on year 3.

[2] SENATE BILL 09-163 – Unanimously passed Senate Education Committee, 7-0, and unanimously passed House Appropriations Committee, 13-0. http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2009A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/E45E06A4FE98EA6587257551006471C8?Open&file=163_enr.pdf

Sponsored BY SENATOR(S) Hudak and King K., Bacon, Boyd, Gibbs, Groff, Heath, Hodge, Morse, Newell, Romer, Sandoval, Schwartz, Shaffer B., Spence, Tochtrop, Williams, Carroll M., Penry, White; also REPRESENTATIVE(S) Middleton and Massey, Ferrandino, Fischer, Frangas, Gardner B., Labuda, Merrifield, Pace, Pommer, Ryden, Scanlan, Schafer S., Solano, Stephens, Summers, Todd, Vigil.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/cdedepcom/download/pdf/senatebill163.pdf

[3] In 2014 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.…” (AV#121, p.11).  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,” 9/2/2014).

[4] Crawford Elementary

	Overall rating	Points Earned
2010	Improvement Plan	50.1%
2011	Priority Improvement	43.8%
2012	Priority Improvement	42.0%
2013	Priority Improvement	39.4%
2014	Improvement Plan	57.0%

See also “The Write Stuff: Crawford Elementary School principal succeeds with literacy program,” Aurora Sentinel, March 12, 2015. http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/write-stuff-crawford-elementary-school-principal-succeeds-literacy-program/.