April 8, 2015
|
From “Denver and Aurora High Schools; Crisis and Opportunity”(A Plus
Denver, 4/2013)
“With the exception of DSST,
we have had little success in creating high schools that are mission-driven
toward a specific outcome (like college) for most or all students, serve a
mixed or low-income student body and are academically high performing.”
|
Dear Another View: You criticize the lack of honesty and transparency
by the Colorado Education Initiative in its work with Abraham Lincoln and Aurora Central to expand Advanced
Placement classes (AV#126). You depict Aurora Central in harsh terms, twice
(AV#88 and #109), but you have not spent 30 minutes in the building or talking
with teachers there. You contribute to a
rather gloomy report on Denver and Aurora high schools (see box, right).
How about an idea that might
actually help! Something constructive –
for a change!
Happy to! Here we go. But hardly original. The idea, in fact, was
tucked away on page 17 of that report on DPS and APS high schools – perhaps
lost among the 25-plus recommendations: “Restructure
or create smaller, autonomous mission-driven schools.”
I will expand on that: Stop
saying that if we built these schools for 1,800 students (40 years ago or
more), that’s what we’re stuck with, the size of the building determines the
size of the school. Recognize that
nearly every successful new school in Colorado serving a large percentage of
low-income students has chosen to
keep its size under 600 students. Design
schools around that maximum number, and figure out the building issues from
there. To foster the culture and
community, to give a school leader and faculty a fighting chance to create an
environment where students are known well, stop tinkering with chronically
low-performing high schools “serving” over 1,500 students—when size is one of
their biggest obstacles.
Compare
and contrast
Here is the first of several
charts. Take a look at the size of Denver’s top-performing schools.
DPS School Performance Framework
- 2014 – Top 10 HIGH SCHOOLS
|
Denver Public Schools
|
Type/
Network
|
% pts
earned
|
Status
Spotlight
|
%
FRL
|
%
Minority
|
Enrollment-
fall 2014
|
|
DISTINGUISHED
|
|
|||||
|
DSST: Green Valley Ranch High
|
charter
|
91.85
|
Exceeds
|
73.4
|
79.9
|
505
|
|
DSST: Stapleton
|
charter
|
88.6
|
Exceeds
|
48.1
|
60.3
|
514
|
|
Denver School of the Arts
|
Magnet/
6-12
|
86.07
|
Exceeds
|
14.2
|
21.7
|
657 (9-12)
1,086 –
6-12
|
|
East High
|
regular
|
80.34
|
Exceeds
|
35.6
|
45.1
|
2,580
|
|
MEETS EXPECTATIONS
|
|
|||||
|
KIPP Denver Collegiate
|
charter
|
70.3
|
Exceeds
|
91.8
|
95.5
|
361
|
|
CEC Middle College of Denver
|
IPS
|
70
|
Exceeds
|
87.2
|
90.8
|
430
|
|
STRIVE Prep - Excel
|
charter
|
63.56
|
Exceeds
|
89.8
|
92.1
|
238 (in
school’s first year—will grow to 450
|
|
Denver Center for International
Studies
|
Regular/
6-12
|
60.92
|
Exceeds
|
51.7
|
56.6
|
419 (9-12)
774 –
6-12
|
|
South High
|
regular
|
53.75
|
Approaching
|
72.7
|
55.7
|
1,403
|
|
Thomas Jefferson
|
regular
|
53.75
|
Meets
|
54.5
|
55.4
|
1,058
|
505, 514,
361, 450: Average high school enrollment in the four high-performing DPS
charters: 450 students
Now take a look at three of our large, low-performing high schools. As
many or more students in the freshman class
than in the entire school at our successful charters. (Figures from fall 2014.)
Adams High School in Adams 14 – 1,783 students (536 freshmen). Entering
year 5 on the accountability clock. Put on Turnaround
Plan 2010; on Priority Improvement
Plan 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.
Aurora Central in APS – 2,188
students (592 freshmen). The state’s
other large high school entering year 5 on the accountability clock. At the
February school board meeting, an informative presentation by CDE’s Turnaround
Office stated what could be severe consequences if current trends continue. The news appeared to startle some board
members: “I think
this is a lot to take in,” said board president JulieMarie Shepherd (http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/02/18/aurora-chief-will-propose-changes-for-struggling-central-high-school/#.VRw-s_nF9qU). Mary Lewis—a member of the
school board since 2007, and former board president—grew defensive, as well she
might. “It’s —
scary isn’t the right word — I’m still looking for the partnership piece,” she
said, eyeing the state officials. “I’m looking for [you to say] we’re here to
help.”
Classic. Blame the
messenger. Chronic low-performance, for
five years—and now you’re paying
attention?
But does the district leadership
even explore the issue of school size? Little
evidence in that Chalkbeat article,
or in its story a month later on Superintendent Rico Munn’s proposal to “save”
the school from state intervention. (See more under Aurora Public Schools and
Aurora Central High, Addendum A).
|
Plans
for Lincoln
“Lincoln’s enrollment is also
declining. The school enrolled 1,900 students in 2009 but now has closer to
1,400. The district has started a number of new high schools in the area in
recent years, including KIPP Collegiate and DSST College View. Some of the
space left empty as Lincoln’s enrollment has dropped might be filled by the
new middle school. There would be no cap on Lincoln’s enrollment even if
another school is placed in the building.”
|
Abraham Lincoln in DPS – 1,477
students (492 freshmen). Denver’s SPF is
less generous than the state’s: Lincoln was Accredited
on Watch in 2011, 2012, and 2013, and dropped to Accredited on Priority Watch in 2014. Last month, at long last, we heard the district is
developing a plan…. But no talk, that I
can find, questioning its current size (see box).
Sharon
Bailey and Alyssa Whitehead-Bust -
learn
from success in charters
Do we learn from what works? The issue was raised by local leaders at a
conference for the Education Writers of America, held at UC-D’s School of
Public Affairs in early March. The “Eye on Denver” panel featured Sharon Bailey,
former DPS school board member and a leader with the Colorado Black Round Table,
and Alyssa-Whitehead Bust, chief academic and innovation office for DPS. Bailey commented that “there are some
essential elements” of the successful charters that could be shared and
replicated, but “we haven’t taken enough advantage of that.” Whitehead-Bust agreed: “We haven’t fulfilled
that goal, to use the success in charters” and bring it into the large system.
She spoke of some collaboration taking place, but confessed that “these
exchanges are the anomaly.” But she
sounds eager to do more. Education Week’s
special edition on “The Chief Academic Officer’s Evolving Role,” described her
“current hybrid role” where she “oversees
approval and accountability for charter schools, in addition to working with
district schools. She said, ‘The advantage is this cross-pollination idea—‘being
able to have one component of my work focused on innovation and charters allows
me to understand best practices. In Denver, our charter schools outperform our
noncharter schools. ... It’s a big advantage to be able to learn from what’s
happening in those environments.’”
Success for small schools and urban charters is evident well beyond
Denver. See "Headed to College: The
Effects of New York City's Small High Schools of Choice on Postsecondary
Enrollment,” Education Week, 10/22/14
- Addendum B. And the just-published study from the Center
for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, “Urban Charter
School Study: Report on 41 Regions,” lists several implications for its largely
positive findings in major cities, including Denver.
The best urban
charter sectors provide extraordinary opportunities to learn how best to serve
the most disadvantaged students. The results presented throughout this document
… provide ample evidence that some urban
charter sectors have figured out how to create dramatically higher levels of
academic growth to their most disadvantaged students.… these urban regions can
serve as models from which all public schools serving disadvantaged student
populations may learn. http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/download/Urban%20Charter%20School%20Study%20Report%20on%2041%20Regions.pdf
DPS
- “strategies that work”
“To build upon the momentum of the last several years,
DPS will focus on the changes that have proven successful and introduce new
strategies to continue to drive innovation and progress.”
The Denver Plan
Last September a meeting of A
Plus Denver and Denver Public School leaders also stressed the importance of identifying
successful strategies and bringing them to more schools across the
district. Everyone agrees: the system
merely inches forward, even as we see significant progress for students in a
few schools—in settings where the free and reduced lunch student population
exceeds the district average. (Last
year’s report, Beyond Averages, stressed
the disparity in secondary schools—see Addendum
C.)
Creating smaller high schools might not fit some folks’ definition of a
“strategy” or “best practice.” I would
argue that, in urban districts where a majority of students are from low-income
homes (69.7% in Aurora, 70.3% Denver, 72.8% Adams 14), it may be the most
essential first step to give schools
a chance to succeed. Let’s be honest: we establish a big and impersonal structure,
discover it is on the verge of being labelled a “dropout factory,” and then struggle
mightily to find ways—oh let me count the
ways!—to minimize the damage. At
least DPS is trying a new strategy,
phasing out high schools like West and Montbello.
Another chart. Please look at the
size of many of Colorado’s lowest-performing high schools.
High schools
ranked among bottom 30 by Colorado School Grades:
|
District
|
High
School
|
Grade
|
Out of 345 high schools
|
Enrollment- fall 2014
|
|
Adams
County 14
|
Adams City High School
|
F
|
#338
|
1,783
|
|
Aurora
Public Schools
|
Aurora Central H.S.
|
F
|
#333
|
2,188
|
|
Pueblo
60
|
Central H.S.
|
F
|
#329
|
812
|
|
Jefferson
County
|
Jefferson H.S.
|
F
|
#326
|
489
|
|
Sheridan
|
Sheridan H.S.
|
F
|
#325
|
349
|
|
Denver
Public Schools
|
Abraham Lincoln
|
D-
|
#324
|
1,477
|
|
Greeley
6
|
Northridge H.S.
|
D-
|
#323
|
1,118
|
|
Westminster
50
|
Westminster H.S.
|
D-
|
#322
|
2,456
|
|
Jefferson
County
|
Alameda Internat. H.S.
|
D-
|
#319
|
833
|
|
Mapleton
|
Mapleton Expedit. Sch. of the Arts
(7-12)
|
D
|
#315
|
583
|
|
Pueblo
60
|
East H.S.
|
D
|
#314
|
1,130
|
|
Englewood
|
Englewood H.S.
|
D
|
#312
|
638
|
|
Aurora
Public Schools
|
Gateway H.S.
|
D
|
#311
|
1,747
|
|
Aurora
Public Schools
|
Hinkley H.S.
|
D
|
#311
|
2,168
|
|
Adams
12
|
Thornton High
|
D
|
309
|
1,778
|
|
Adams
12
|
Northglenn H.S.
|
D
|
302
|
1,875
|
Yes, I know Colorado
features a number of terrific large high schools. Cherry Creek’s Grandview High
enrolled 2,572 students last fall and earned an A from Colorado School Grades. The small school skeptic will protest that most
Cherry Creek high schools enroll over 2,000 students and point to the largest high
school in the state, by far—enrolling
over 3,500 students—Cherry Creek High. One
of the nation’s best, right? My simple
response: Aurora Central, Abraham Lincoln, etc., serve a different population.
Colorado
School Grades – Top 10 High Schools
One final chart. Of the top 10 “high schools” in the ratings by
Colorado School Grades, most are charters.
Several are part of either a 6-12 or K-12 program—another way to ensure
high school students are known well. One
is a magnet school that—unlike charters—is allowed to select its students (the
Denver School of the Arts). Only Palmer
High in Colorado Springs is a non-charter 9-12 school. Enrollment: 1,976.
|
District
|
School
|
Type/Grades if
more than 9-12
|
Grade
|
Out of 345 schools
|
Enrollment-
fall 2014
|
|
Poudre
|
Ridgeview Classical Charter
|
charter/
K-12
|
A+
|
1
|
180 (9-12)
798 -
K-12
|
|
Edison 54JT
|
Edison Jr.-Sr. High
|
6-12
|
A+
|
1
|
46 (9-12)
84 –
6-12
|
|
Poudre
|
Liberty Common
|
charter/
K-12
|
A+
|
1
|
285 (9-12)
1,074 –
K-12
|
|
Academy 20
|
TCA College Pathways
|
charter/
hybrid online/
7-12
|
A+
|
1
|
382 (9-12)
497 –
7-12
|
|
Cheyenne Mountain 12
|
The Vanguard School
|
charter
|
A+
|
1
|
258
|
|
Denver Public Schools
|
DSST: Stapleton H.S.
|
charter
|
A
|
6
|
514
|
|
Denver Public Schools
|
DSST: Green Valley H.S.
|
charter
|
A
|
7
|
505
|
|
Denver Public Schools
|
Denver School of the Arts
|
magnet
|
A
|
8
|
657 (9-12)
1,086 - 6-12
|
|
Academy 20
|
The Classical Academy
|
charter
|
A
|
9
|
619
|
|
Colorado Springs 11
|
Palmer H.S.
|
regular
|
A
|
10
|
1,976
|
Average
enrollment in the seven high-performing Colorado charter high schools, above:
392 students
Please give
me some credit: I know small school size is no silver bullet. Those leading
some of our best small high schools are the first to say that it is “an
important condition or success”—but by itself is hardly enough. Of course. Just
one ingredient, but vital. It can help 500-600 students and their 40 faculty be
a community, with a strong culture, committed to a clear mission. School people know this; I taught in four such
schools. Too often policymakers,
school boards, and the district office don’t get it. (See Addendum D for more on this, featuring Jefferson County’s recent misadventure
trying to double the size of one its better
schools.)
I realize
that, over ten years ago, we experienced a brief, disappointing “small school
movement” in DPS and other Colorado districts.
See “Follow-up on Manual” (http://www.cpr.org/news/story/follow-manual-high-1).
Yes, of course, let’s learn from our mistakes. But look at the deliberate choice
in school size made by Denver School of Science and Technology, KIPP, and
STRIVE. You will see we have had—with
little fanfare—a successful small school movement well in place over the past
six or seven years. Attention should be paid.
School size may well be part of the secret sauce to success.
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
Aurora Public Schools and Aurora Central High
Aurora’s
recent proposal—“Aurora chief pitches broad reform plan to save Central high
from state sanction,” fails to recognize this central issue of school size (http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/03/18/aurora-chief-pitches-broad-reform-plan-to-save-central-high-from-state-sanctions/#.VRw4vvnF9qU). Creating an innovation zone for Aurora Central and
its feeder schools might have benefits, but Superintendent Ricco Munn speaks as
if the 2,000 student high school is a given.
It shows little imagination of how much “restructuring” will be needed.
From APS School
Board Minutes – March 17, 2015
Munn noted that the
five state options are structural in nature and highlighted school design and
framework options. He indicated that innovation
status is the best option for a comprehensive high school of 2,000 students….
Munn highlighted the
innovation structure option and action zone proposal, a concept driven to
address student needs as well as needs within the broader context of the community.
He shared that innovation status would open structural options, including
schools within a school, smaller learning communities, or a mix of some
autonomous or charter schools. (Bold mine)
COMMENT:
Is APS unaware of the limited success of innovation schools?[1]
Is it learning from DPS, where the board has welcomed over 45 charters—schools
that do have control over their size?
The
Colorado Department of Education’s “Guidance for Implementation of the
Innovation Schools Act,” includes a section under the subheading:
Why
seek Innovation status?
The Innovation
Schools Act was created, in part, to respond to public school and district
leaders who were asking for autonomies
similar to those received by charter schools. Their position was that
charter schools were at an advantage because they had greater flexibility and
control over their resources at the school level and could leverage these
resources to best meet the needs of their students in ways that district
managed schools could not because they were often bound to a more centralized
district and state-wide set of rules, agreements, and restrictions. … A recent
study … found that the four major reasons that schools sought innovation status
were to gain greater control over their
budgets, schedule, staffing, and school
operations. (Bold mine)
“Autonomies
similar”? Not similar enough, if control
of school size is key. I hope the APS
board understands the critical difference between the laws allowing for
innovation schools versus charter schools.
If Aurora Central controls its budget, schedule, etc.–and still enrolls
2,200 students–I give it zero chance of significant improvement.
Addendum B
Small Schools
"Headed to College:
The Effects of New York City's Small High Schools of Choice on Postsecondary
Enrollment” – Education Week, Oct.
22, 2014 - by Madeline Will
New York City's small high
schools raise graduation rates and boost college enrollment—at a lower cost per
graduate—than the city's larger high schools, according to findings from an
ongoing longitudinal study.
Since 2002, New York City has closed 31 large, struggling public high
schools and replaced them with small schools. The findings released last week
by MDRC, a New York-based research group, look at 84 of the city's 123
academically nonselective "small schools of choice," which serve
mostly low-income students and those of color.
The study compares the
academic outcomes of students who attended a small school with those of their
peers who lost the admissions lottery and enrolled in another high school. (The
study is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which
underwrites some coverage of college- and career-ready standards in Education
Week.)
The report concludes that the
small schools raise on-time graduation rates by 9.4 percentage points and boost
college enrollment by 8.4 percentage points. Forty-nine percent of the
small-school students enrolled in postsecondary education after graduating on
time.
Addendum C
BEYOND AVERAGES: SCHOOL QUALITY IN DENVER PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
By Alex Ooms - Donnell-Kay Foundation,
2014
Here I quote several points from
this report that touch on charters and secondary schools in DPS. The report made no mention of school size as
a factor in the strong results at many of the secondary charters. That
interpretation is mine alone. The quotes below only stress the quality of so many
Denver charters.
From – Executive Summary
… while the district has, very recently,
improved many of its elementary schools, there is no historical evidence that
the district has the ability to open or operate quality schools in the
secondary grades.
… Every child deserves to attend
a quality school, and if the district focuses on the right strategies, more
children will soon have that opportunity.
From – Averages, and Beyond….
In particular, disaggregating
summary data shows the catalytic impact of charter schools on academic
outcomes….In 2009, there were four charter schools that met our quality
designation; in 2013 there were 15. The performance of many charter schools —
particularly the expansion of the DSST, STRIVE and KIPP networks, which have
grown collectively from four schools2 in 2009 to 16 schools in 2013 — provided
a tide that has lifted aggregated data, even if results at many other schools
remain unchanged.
From - The Increase in Quality
Schools
…we also saw three other factors (which often overlapped) that played a
meaningful role in school performance, (among them):
Governance: The first factor is the
governance model. We found a sharp distinction in both overall achievement and
access for low-income students between schools run by the district compared
with those operated under a charter. This difference was particular compelling
with new schools (p.9).
… Quality new charter schools serve 78% low-income students. Quality
new district-operated schools serve just 18% (p. 12).
… While the strategy of starting
new schools is paying dividends for DPS, the success in creating quality
schools — as well as serving low-income students within those schools — resides
overwhelmingly with charters (p. 14).
From - Secondary Schools Overall
The district’s quandary for
quality secondary grades is not limited to continuing schools — it exists
within district-run new schools as well. The difficulties are two-fold:
achievement and access. First, DPS operates very few quality secondary schools.
Indeed, in 2013, there were just four quality secondary schools under district
governance out of 40 total…. Second and far worse: the district secondary
schools that meet our quality distinction are not available to the average low-income
student. Two of these schools are magnets and have selective admissions
policies; the other two have low-income enrollment of 22% and 36% respectively
– half or less of the DPS average.
… Put more simply, there is no
quality district-operated secondary school open to all students with the
exception of East High and its prodigious gaps in academic achievement. An
average student in DPS, particularly if low-income, has virtually no chance of
attending a quality secondary school run by the district. Their best chance is
to enroll at one of the 13 charter secondary schools with a 2013 SPF score
above 70%.
The inability of DPS to operate
quality schools serving secondary grades either by opening new schools or by
improving existing schools is deeply concerning…. Without quality secondary
schools, the district’s ability to educate students for career and college
success is virtually impossible.
Addendum D
Compare and Contrast – District-think
versus School-think
District–think: Jefferson
County and Applewood
In Jefferson County, we
read of a successful elementary school, Maple Grove, with roughly 400
students. According to an article in YourHub: “Jeffco School Board president
Ken Witt said such success is why he seconded the motion to expand the school,”
moving it into a new building and doubling its size to 800.
The school community reacted: “Applewood residents concerned about fate of their
neighborhood schools,” 3/16, 2015.
"Our
students would be attending an elementary that is larger than most middle
schools and some high schools," said Ali Lasell, who has two children at
Maple Grove and said she and her husband moved to Applewood in part for the
schools. "We would have some very serious conversations in my house about
whether we will continue in Maple Grove or not."
Maple Grove has been in the Applewood
neighborhood for nearly 60 years; (Principal Ian) Stone said he has students
who are children and grandchildren of Maple Grove students.
"I
think people have a special bond — it shows up when families come back here, or
stay in this neighborhood," he said.
Maple
Grove is a neighborhood school, has been nationally recognized as a Blue Ribbon
School and is regarded for its program for students who are deaf or hard of
hearing. It also has a high choice enrollment wait list.
One member of the community wrote in this wonderful zinger: “Maple
Grove has been a successful school for 60 years so let's change it. Makes sense
to me.”
Happily, good sense prevailed,
and Maple Grove will stay in its current home. But the story illustrates how
district-think contrasts with school-think.
School-think: Sturgis
Charter high schools - 400 students on EACH campus
Hearing great news (see below)
about a charter high school in Hyannis, Massachusetts, not far from my parents’
home, I visited Sturgis Charter Public School and sat down with the executive
director, Eric Hieser. We met in their second building—called their West Campus. The success of the first campus–serving 400
students—created a huge waiting list, but the school was determined not to create another large public high
school. “We wanted to walk down the hallway and know each student,” Hieser told
me. So they built and opened a second campus.
Enrollment at the two schools totals 806 this year—roughly 400 students on
each campus.
This is how school people think.
Sturgis Ranks #1 in MA. According to U.S. News & World Report
Sturgis Charter Public School in Hyannis, MA has been awarded a
Gold Medal by U. S. News & World
Report for 2013 for its ranking of the Best High Schools in the U.S. Three
charter schools ranked in the top 5 high schools in MA, including Sturgis
Charter at #1, Advanced Math and Science Academy in Marlborough at #3, and
Salem Academy in Salem at #5. Rounding out the top 5 high schools in MA were
Boston Latin at #2 and Dover-Sherborn at #4. The U.S. News ranking is based upon several factors, including MCAS
scores, the MCAS scores of least advantaged students, and student participation
and success in AP or IB courses, denoted as a College Readiness Index.
Further information regarding the 2013 U.S. News & World Report ranking of the Best U.S. High Schools can be gained at:
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-school
Further information regarding the 2013 U.S. News & World Report ranking of the Best U.S. High Schools can be gained at:
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-school
America's
Most Challenging High Schools
The Washington Post once again recognizes Sturgis as the #1 school
in MA, and also #4 in the Northeast, and # 84 in the U.S. This marks the 8th
straight year that Sturgis has been ranked one of the top schools in the U.S.
by The Washington Post.
[1]
Addendum
C quotes from Beyond Averages (2014) on DPS schools. Along with its positive account of the new
small charters in the district, that report offered a widely held view of the
impact of the 2008 Innovation Schools Act:
4. Re-Examine innovation schools. Our analysis,
similar to other groups, saw little substantive difference in academic outcomes
between innovation schools and other district-operated schools. DPS needs to
reconsider the autonomy, authorization process, and expectations from
innovation schools. There is ample opportunity to do things differently within
DPS, but the innovation schools effort has been deeply disappointing in the
singularity of both school models and results.
