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:
|
(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 16th
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%
|
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 3rd to 4th
grade has lost 5% proficiency each
year.
There is a
significant drop in proficiency between
kindergarten and 1st 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.
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
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”
|
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
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%
|
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 3rd grade math and 5th 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 4th 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%
*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
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.
[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).
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/.
No comments:
Post a Comment