Thursday, June 25, 2015

AV#76-Colorado scores an F on our history standards – and what we can do about it (without spending a dime)

                                                                                                                                                                                                      March 5, 2011

“World War II was the mightiest struggle humankind has ever seen. It killed more people, cost more money, damaged more property, affected more people, and caused more far-reaching changes in nearly every country than any other war in history. The number of people killed, wounded, or missing between September 1939 and September 1945 can never be calculated, but it is estimated that more than 55 million people perished.”    
                                                                                   http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1661.html

Do you find it odd that World War II is not mentioned in the Colorado history standards?  Not once in 100 pages.  At one point, they get close … but then skip over those six horrific years:
“Prepared graduates” will “investigate causes and effects of significant events in United States history.  Topics to include but not limited to WWI, Great Depression, Cold War…”
Something missing?  Go to our standards and do a search for World War II.  Search for Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler.  Try Pearl Harbor, D-Day, Hiroshima, A-Bomb. Nothing. Zip.

**
To get an F in college—an Art History course--was embarrassing.  Maybe I shouldn’t have slept through the final exam.  No one likes to get an F, but we should take it to heart and see how we can improve.  That’s certainly what we will be saying to schools if Colorado starts giving them letter grades—as many states are doing.  That is certainly what we would ask of a teacher—or a student—given such a low evaluation.  Unless we want to shoot the messenger, failing grades should force a little soul-searching.

This past month the Thomas B. Fordham Institute released its first report on the quality of state history standards since 2003.  Eight years ago our standards were given a D.  Colorado’s grade today?  F.  Our scores on Content and Rigor – 0/7.  On Clarity and Specificity: 0/3. 
(The State of State U.S. History Standards 2011, by Sheldon M. Stern, Jeremy A. Stern)

Table-1 • 2011 Grades for U.S. History Standards - Ranked from Best to Worst

STATE
2011 GRADE
South Carolina
A
Alabama
A-
California
A-
Indians
A-
Massachusetts
A-
New York
A-
Oklahoma
B+
Georgia
B
Michigan
B
12 states
C
10 states
D
18 states, including COLORADO
F

So I ask: What are we doing about it?  Can’t we do better?

As Table 1 shows, we were hardly alone with our low score.  Fordham’s “Key findings include:
A majority of states’ standards are mediocre-to-awful. The average grade across all states is barely a D. In twenty-eight jurisdictions—a majority of states—the history standards earn Ds or below. Eighteen earn Fs.  Just one state—South Carolina—has standards strong enough to earn a straight A. … just ten states—or about one in five—get honors marks.  (These states provide) …several national models … that lagging states could and should emulate going forward.
               
We learned of the report in The Washington Post, Education Week, and The Economist, but not a word in The Denver Post or Education News Colorado.  It deserves our attention.  I have supported the standards effort since it began in the early 1990’s.  The F does embarrass me, as I suspect it does many Coloradans who believe the standards we commit to reveals our expectations for public schools.  Furthermore, I taught some history when, in my English classes, students read speeches by Churchill and Roosevelt, W.E.B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X (again, not one of whom is named in Colorado’s history standards)

What’s wrong with our standards?

First, The Economist’s summary.  It points out that while President Obama and many others remind us how critical it is that we improve the teaching of math, science, and technology, a 2009 test found an even smaller percentage of high school seniors—47%—scored at the basic level in history than in math.  “One problem, (this) new report argues, is that states have pathetic standards for what history should be taught. Good standards do not ensure that students will learn history. But they are a crucial guide…many states emphasize abstract concepts rather than history itself.”

That captures the essence of Fordham’s two-page criticism of our standards (found at http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2011/20110216_SOSHS/SOSS_USHistory_Colorado.pdf).

A few bullets from the report (quoted with permission from Fordham):

Overview  -  The 2009 Colorado social studies standards, we are told, were “designed for clarity, rigor, and coherence,” aiming for “fewer, higher and clearer standards.” The result is meant to be “a vision” of “what all students should know and be able to do at each grade level through eighth, and then through high school.” Unfortunately, thematic abstractions dominate the standards—to the near-total exclusion of historical or chronological coherence, obscuring what limited content there is in a confused tangle of categories, subcategories, and jargon.

Goals and Organization  -  Each such expectation consists of a thematic heading—labeled “concepts and skills students master”—laying out broad conceptual themes to be covered. For example, one eighth-grade history grade-level expectation directs students to “formulate appropriate hypotheses about United States history based on a variety of historical sources and perspectives.

The state then provides a series of “evidence outcomes” for each concepts and skills heading. These are thematic summary statements of knowledge that students must master as well as “21st century skills and readiness competencies.” …This jargon-laden snarl of nested categories severely fragments any historical content, making chronological presentation impossible. With content summaries so broad, general, and disorganized, even the basic scope of each year’s course can be difficult to discern.

Evaluation  -  According to the state’s social studies standards, Colorado students are expected to graduate with the skills to understand “how people view, construct and interpret history” and grasp “key historical periods and patterns of change over time within and across nations and cultures.”  Unfortunately, concepts and skills must be matched with content and substance if genuine historical clarity and rigor are to be achieved. Yet Colorado seems much more interested in abstract goals than specific substance….

Content and Rigor Conclusion  -  Colorado’s K–12 Academic Standards in social studies provide virtually no subject-specific content in U.S. history. There is hardly anything in U.S. history that teachers are specifically required to know or to teach at any particular grade level. A complete lack of specific content means that substantive rigor cannot be identified, measured, or evaluated. Even a few vague and brief references to specific eras or concepts cannot raise the score above a zero out of seven for Content and Rigor.

From Education Week – UNC professor responds

As Education Week’s article suggested, some will fault the messenger and dismiss the message:

But officials in some of those low-scoring states and other critics of the Fordham study said the poor ratings owe largely to differences between the institute and various states on how American history is best taught, what it should cover, and how detailed the curricula should be in elementary, middle, and high school.

“The authors seem to want a prescribed and detailed U.S. history curriculum for every state, and this is constitutionally impossible in Colorado,” said Fritz Fischer, a professor of history at the University of Northern Colorado and the chairman of the National Council for History Education. Under the state’s constitution, Colorado officials are prohibited from dictating curricula to school districts, he said. “The biggest problem reflected in the study is that it ignores historical thinking and understanding in favor of weakly defined ‘specific substance,’ ” said Mr. Fischer, who has also advised Colorado on developing social studies standards. “The authors appear to be attracted to lists of names, dates, and events at the expense of standards that require students to develop an in-depth understanding of historical concepts and ideas.”

However, Fordham’s president said its analysis is about making sure students have a firm grasp of historical facts before developing historical concepts and ideas.  “You have to get the bricks before you can get the mortar,” Chester E. Finn, Jr. said. 
(“Report Gives a Majority of States Poor Grades on History Standards,
by Michelle D. Anderson, Education Week, Feb. 16, 2011, online)

Jo O’Brien, Assistant Commissioner for Standards and Assessment at the Colorado Department of Education, emailed me: “It is not surprising that the Fordham reviewers rated Colorado’s history standards as they did given their review criteria is fundamentally different than the framework used to develop all of Colorado’s Academic Standards.  States rated high by Fordham tend to have history standards and addendum documents that are more curricular in nature.  In Colorado, curriculum design occurs at the district level, not at the state level.”  She added: “The need for specific and rigorous curriculum is essential. Colorado is not in a legal position to offer curriculum.  That will always put us crossways with such a review.”

A recommendation for elementary and middle schools

Perhaps the state cannot do more.  I would note, though, that we recently adopted the Common Core standards in English, and here we at least see a list of texts—specific novels, stories, poems, and  speeches--that would help schools and teachers know what literature would meet expectations at certain grade levels*.  I am sure many teachers across the state pay less attention to the amorphous state standards and feel their more specific district standards are a better guide. (This English teacher felt that way about the Douglas County language arts standards, as compared to the state standards). 

Still, I believe many schools and teachers would be glad to have a list of essential names, places, events, and critical ideas to address (which is hardly “dictating curricula,” true?)  It is challenging enough to prepare the best units and lesson plans; I certainly wanted some choices as a teacher, but I was sure there were folks brighter than me who could come up with the big picture, the essentials of what to teach.

For K-8 history and geography, I think it has been done.  The Core Knowledge Sequence— now guiding the teaching of history in close to 100 Colorado public and private schools—offers the specificity that gives teachers everything our state standards do not.  I speak as one who spent most of the past decade teaching English in three schools committed to, or moving towards, Core Knowledge as its guide.  Language arts teachers benefit greatly knowing what our students are being taught by our colleagues who teach history.  The curriculum outline is written in a way that we often piggyback on each other’s work.

Let’s take, say, World War II.  Pages 5 and 6 here give you Core’s guide for that unit in history.  Those who see it as “merely a list to memorize” that demands insufficient “critical thinking skills” show little appreciation for the powerful units created by my history colleagues Mark, Diana, and Miles, or for the heartfelt discussions as our students wrestled with these events.

Language Arts Class: World War II–speeches by Churchill (1940) and Roosevelt (1941), and The Diary of a Young Girl (1942-1944), by Anne Frank

Colorado standards and the Core curriculum expect students to read essays and speeches as well as fiction.  I was glad to use time in English class when students could read Winston Churchill’s “Blood Sweat and Tears” and “Their Finest Hour”; I did so as my Social Studies colleague hit 1940.   As history class entered 1941 and America’s involvement, my class read Franklin Roosevelt’s “The Four Freedoms” and “Declaration of War Against Japan.”  Our close look at these texts gave the students new insight into how these two men spoke for—and led— their nations.  (NOTE: Two of those speeches are referenced in the Common Core English standards.*)

Then we began The Diary of a Young Girl.  (Note—this is recommended for seventh graders in the Common Core Curriculum Map, designed to align with the Common Core standards—see http://commoncore.org/maps/index.php/maps/grade_7_unit_3/#But if history class isn’t simultaneously teaching WWII, how will students have the needed context to appreciate Anne Frank’s situation?)  Her story moves from the summer of 1942 to the bombings of Amsterdam to D-Day and into August 1944—with the Frank family, like millions, waiting for the Allies to arrive.  Their fears—and their desperate hope for liberation from Nazi rule—came to life in the words of thoughtful teenager growing up, struggling with relationships, with the war and prejudice, and hoping to discover who she is.

From the Core Knowledge Sequence- curriculum guide for 7th Grade History/Geography*

NOTE: This is one page from the four-plus pages in the CK 7th grade curriculum guide – see page 180-185 of the Core Knowledge Sequence – Content and Skills Guidelines for K-8:

V. World War II

A. THE RISE OF TOTALITARIANISM IN EUROPE
• Italy
Mussolini establishes fascism
Attack on Ethiopia
• Germany
Weimar Republic, economic repercussions of WWI
Adolf Hitler and the rise of Nazi totalitarianism: cult of the F├╝hrer (“leader”),  Mein Kampf
Nazism and the ideology of fascism, in contrast to communism and democracy
Racial doctrines of the Nazis: anti-Semitism, the concept of Lebensraum (literally, “living space”) for the “master race,” Kristallnacht
The Third Reich before the War: Gestapo, mass propaganda, book burning
• The Soviet Union
Communist totalitarianism: Josef Stalin, “Socialism in one country”
Collectivization of agriculture
Five-year plans for industrialization
The Great Purge
• Spanish Civil War  -- Franco, International Brigade, Guernica

B. WORLD WAR II IN EUROPE AND AT HOME, 1939–45
• Hitler defies Versailles Treaty: reoccupation of Rhineland, Anschluss, annexation of Austria
• Appeasement: Munich Agreement, “peace in our time”
• Soviet-Nazi Nonaggression Pact
• Blitzkrieg: invasion of Poland, fall of France, Dunkirk
• Battle of Britain: Winston Churchill, “nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat”
• The Home Front in America
American Lend-Lease supplies, Atlantic Charter
America First movement
U.S. mobilization for war: desegregation of defense industries, “Rosie the Riveter,” war bonds
America races Germany to develop the atomic bomb: the Manhattan Project
• Hitler invades Soviet Union: battles of Leningrad and Stalingrad
• The Holocaust: “Final Solution,” concentration camps (Dachau, Auschwitz)
• North Africa Campaign: El Alamein
• D-Day: Allied invasion of Normandy, General Dwight Eisenhower
• Battle of the Bulge, bombing of Dresden
• Yalta Conference
• Surrender of Germany, Soviet Army takes Berlin

*Reprinted with permission from the Core Knowledge Foundation, from The Core Knowledge Sequence: Content and Skill Guidelines for Grades PreK - 8, © 2010 by the Core Knowledge Foundation. (Note: updated in 2010.)  Not to be copied or reproduced without permission from the Core Knowledge Foundation, 801 E. High Street, Charlottesville, VA  22902   www.coreknowledge.org <http://www.coreknowledge.org/.

C. WORLD WAR II IN THE PACIFIC, AND THE END OF THE WAR
• Historical background: Japan’s rise to power
Geography of Japan (review all topics from grade 5) -- Sea of Japan and Korea Strait
   High population density, very limited farmland, heavy reliance on imported raw materials, food
Japanese imperialism: occupation of Korea, invasion of Manchuria, Rape of Nanking
Japanese-Soviet neutrality treaty
• Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941: “A day that will live in infamy.”
• Internment of Japanese-Americans
• Fall of the Philippines: Bataan Death March, General Douglas MacArthur, “I shall return.”
• Surrender of Japan -- Atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Enola Gay
U.S. dictates pacifist constitution for Japan, Emperor Hirohito
• Potsdam Conference, Nuremberg war crimes trials
• Creation of United Nations: Security Council, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

**
I use the World War II material merely as one example to contrast Colorado’s standards with Core Knowledge.  Similar specific content enables 8th grade English and history teachers to collaborate as they read: The Good Earth while studying China; Animal Farm after studying the Russian Revolution and totalitarianism; and Du Bois, Hurston, Angelou, King, and Malcolm X during their study of the Civil Rights movement. (King’s “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” is also referenced in the Common Core standards for grades 9-10.)

An F seems right when our standards fail to mention what is perhaps the most critical event of the 20th century.  An outcome that was no sure thing.  So much blood shed.  Huge stakes.  Never again, we tell ourselves.  But hard to learn from this cataclysm—if we fail to teach it.  

What should guide us?  Those who developed our history standards speak of the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework as one resource.  There you will find clear expectations on teaching WW II—see pages 60 and 76— http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/hss/final.pdf.  This part didn’t make it west.  Closer to home, we have 100 schools that find the Core Knowledge Sequence a good place to start.  Perhaps more K-8 teachers will follow.  The bound copy is $35, but at  www.coreknowledge.org/downloads it is free.  I hope you’ll take a look. 

AV#131 - Higher graduation rates? A word of caution before we celebrate

                June 10, 2015

In our state, the high school graduation statistics tell us little about what that degree means—in terms of a graduate’s knowledge and skills.  Last week’s 2014 Legislative Report on Remedial Education again makes that clear: (http://highered.colorado.gov/Publications/Reports/Remedial/FY2014/2014_Remedial_relJune03.pdf). Especially if you look at several high schools where the four-year graduation rate is impressive—but the (low) ACT scores and (high) remediation rates are not.

“… More than half of the states still have not made completing a college- and career-preparatory course of study, fully and verifiably aligned with state standards, a requirement for high school graduation. … It is not yet clear that most states will ultimately have a coherent and streamlined assessment system that both measures how well students are meeting state standards and lets high school students and postsecondary institutions know whether students are ready to enter and succeed in college courses without the need for remediation.”  (“Closing the Expectations Gap,” 2014 REPORT on the Alignment of State K–12 Policies & Practice with the Demands of College & Careers- http://www.achieve.org/files/Achieve-
This is another example of my on-going concern about the “honesty gap” in education, to borrow the oft-heard phrase of late. No accusations of lying here, but I bring together data here that should encourage the state and districts, at a minimum, to ask questions.  My hope is for more than that.  Shouldn’t we insist on clear expectations of what it means to be a high school graduate in Colorado?  Most states do a better job of this, as a recent national report shows (see box).  That report commends Colorado for moving in a positive direction, thanks to changes approved by our state board in 2013 “spelling out what Colorado students must do to earn a high school diploma.”  However, the current majority on the board seems skeptical of that plan (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28119140/colorado-board-education-leaves-graduation-standards-alone-now).  

Many of us worry the board will renege on expectations agreed to two years ago, leaving us in even worse shape when it comes to giving real meaning to a high school degree.


Follow students at high schools over three years:
1.       junior year – their scores on the ACT;
2.       senior year – their graduation rates, and then
3.       the next fall, remediation rates for those entering a Colorado college.



2012 – ACT*
juniors
2013 grad rate** % - seniors
2013 remediation rate *** % - entering college
8 metro area high schools



Hinkley H.S. (AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS)
16.9
57.3
33.8
Sheridan H.S. (SHERIDAN)
16.7
60
47.4
Gateway H.S. (AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS)
16.5
56.7
56
Westminster H.S. (WESTMINSTER)
16.3
74
52.3
Alameda International H.S. (JEFFERSON COUNTY)
16.3
86.1
73.2
Adams City High School (ADAMS 14)
15.6
67.8
62.3
Aurora Central H.S. (AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS)
14.9
42.2
61
Jefferson High School (JEFFERSON COUNTY)
14.8
66.7
69.7
STATE
20.0
76.9
34.2

COMMENT – It is curious to see Westminster High and Alameda International with ACT scores of 16.3 – or 3.7 points below the state average, and yet, a year later, the graduation rates for that same class near the state average (74% at Westminster High), or are well above the state average (86.1% at Alameda International).  Any surprise that most of their graduates who went on to college that fall required remedial classes?

 DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
2012 – ACT*
juniors
2013 grad rate**  % - seniors
2013 remediation rate*** % - entering college
Denver School of Science & Technology-Stapleton
24.1
86.9
7.5
Denver School of the Arts
22.3
97.5
18.4
East
21.4
91.5
36.9
George Washington
19.9
81
39.6
Denver Center for International Studies
19.4
89.5
42.4
Thomas Jefferson
19.4
84
42
KIPP Denver Collegiate
18.5
82.4
45
John Kennedy
18.2
74.8
43.8
Martin Luther King Early College
17.4
83.8
48.9
Southwest Early College
17.3
52.7
16.7
South
16.1
78.1
64.5
Manual H.S.
16.1
62.1
-
Bruce Randolph H.S. (6-12)
16.0
91.4
59.3
Abraham Lincoln
15.5
64.8
63.2
North*
15.2
56.7
81.4
Montbello H.S. (phased out)
15.0
61.2
62.5
West H.S. (phasing out)
14.9
45.2
88.9
DPS Average
17.6
61.3
BOLD–5 schools over 60%
STATE
20.0
76.9
34.2
**Figures from Chalkbeat Colorado:  co.chalkbeat.org
***Figures from the just released 2014 Remedial Education report.  

ACT scores – now more important than ever
    In passing HB-1323, legislators have left the ACT as the only state mandated test after 10th grade. It is debatable whether ACT scores show how our students meet Colorado standards, but the results matter to colleges—hence they will matter to most students too.
Including all of Denver’s larger high schools, we begin to see a correspondence, as we might expect, between the ACT scores of the junior class in 2012 and the graduation rate for that class the following spring, in 2013.  The remediation rates at these schools also reveal a similar pattern—lower the ACT scores, the higher the remediation rates.         

ACT scores 21 and above – close to 90% graduate.   
         Remediation rates low at DSST and DSA.
ACT scores between 18.5 and 21 – over 80% graduate. 
         Remediation rates at 45% or below.

NOTE high grad rates at MLK Early College & Bruce Randolph
ACT scores between 17.3 and 18.2 – in most cases, fewer than 80% graduate – except for Martin Luther King Early College.  Its high graduation rate of 83.8% rate is more consistent with schools where that class averaged one point higher on the ACT (see KIPP-18.5) or two points higher (see Thomas Jefferson-19.4).  Note that the average ACT score in the district was 17.6–similar to MLK’s average—and yet the district had a much lower graduation rate: over 22% points lower (61.3%) than MLK (83.8%).

ACT scores of 16.0 or 16.1 - fewer than 80% graduate in two cases (though the percent graduating at South was surprisingly high given such low ACT scores. The remediation rate for that class at South—64.5%—
is telling).  How odd, then, to see Bruce Randolph with an ACT average of only 16.0 for its juniors, and yet a year later, 91.4% of that class earned a degree. Not odd, though, that of the 27 Bruce Randolph graduates enrolled in higher education the next fall, 16 of them (59.3%) needed remedial classes.

A glance at the class of 2014

If these disparities from 2013 seem worth a closer look, consider ACT scores and graduation rates for the class of 2014.  They add to our doubts about the MLK and Bruce Randolph 2013 graduation rates, and they invite a question about the graduation rate at a third Denver high school, Abraham Lincoln.  They also give further reason to be skeptical of the graduation rate at Alameda High, as well as the “impressive” rates at Sheridan High and Adams City High—in spite of such low ACT results.


School
2013 - ACT
Juniors*
2014 grad rate
Seniors**
Remediation rate
TBD by DHE report in spring of 2016
Mapleton Expeditionary Sch. Of the Arts (7-12) – (Mapleton)
17.6
67.6
?
Englewood H.S. (Englewood)
17.3
72.5
?
Hinkley H.S. (APS)
17.1
57.1
?
Martin Luther King Early College (DPS)
17.1
84.0
?
Gateway H.S.  (APS)
16.5
52
?
Sheridan H.S. (Sheridan)
16.4
82.7
?
North H.S. (DPS)
16.3
69.6
?
Adams City High School (Adams 14)
16.2
78.8
?
Alameda International H.S. (JeffCo)
16.1
89.9
?
Westminster H.S.(Westminster 50)
16.1
67.0
?
Manual H.S. (DPS)
15.7
57.1
?
Abraham Lincoln (DPS)
15.6
75.5
?
Bruce Randolph H.S. (6-12) – (DPS)
15.2
62.6
?
Jefferson H.S. (JeffCo)
15.1
65.1
?
West H.S. (DPS) – being phased out
15.0
55.6
?
Aurora Central H.S.  (APS)
15.0
46.2
?
Average from these schools
16.1
67.6

STATE AVERAGE
20.4***
77.3

NATION
20.9


***If the ACT is the only state mandated test for 11th graders, we must be willing to take the results seriously.  As we see in Todd’s Engdahl’s excellent – if disheartening - analysis in 2013:  http://co.chalkbeat.org/2013/08/21/another-test-report-shows-flat-results/#.VXMrD89Viko.

Martin Luther King Early College - grad rate 2013 – 83.8% and 2014 - 84%
In tracking the graduating class of 2014 at MLK Early College, we see slightly lower ACT scores for them (17.1) than for the class of 2013 (17.4), but the graduation rate remained remarkably high – 84% - when compared to schools with similar ACT results (see Gateway, Hinkley, and North).  

Bruce Randolph – grad rate 2013 – 91.4% - DROPS DRAMATICALLY to 2014 - 62.6%
A year later, note how the graduation rate at Bruce Randolph dropped nearly 30 points from 2013.  The ACT scores were even lower for this class of 2014: 15.2 in 2013 compared to 16.0 in 2012. The 62.6% graduation rate is more credible, in light of the typical graduation rates when a class has such low ACT results.  Doubts persist about the 2013 grad rates.

Abraham Lincoln - grad rate 2013 – 64% RISES 11 POINTS - to 2014 – 75.5%
Puzzling to see the graduation increase rise so much at Abraham Lincoln, even though the low ACT results for those two graduating classes hardly changed at all (15.5 in 2012, 15.6 in 2013).

Three other metro area high schools
Taking a wider look at other metro area high schools, we see three others had graduation rates far exceeding those of other schools with similarly low ACT scores.
Sheridan High, Adams City High, and Alameda International
All had ACT scores in 2013 of 16.4 or less, and yet a year later, each showed graduation rates of close to 80% or better. 

These schools deserve a closer look next year when we learn the percentage of graduates who required remedial work once they went on to college in last fall (the TBD column) .  Their districts and the state may find cause to investigate even sooner.  The public—and especially the students and their families—have a right to know if a high school degree from these schools truly stands for something.

Part of a pattern
For these six schools, above, it is not the first time their recent graduation rates look good, even stellar.  Nor is it the first time their ACT scores and remediation rates were much worse than the state average. Here are their remediation rates for 2012 and 2013. Bruce Randolph is an exception here; its 2014 grad rate is more consistent with the ACT scores for that class. In the other cases, is the “good news” a mirage?  

School
2012 –
remediation rate
2013 – remediation rate
2014 grad rate
seniors
DPS- overall


62.8
Abraham Lincoln
65.1
63.2
75.5
Bruce Randolph
62.5
59.3
62.6
Martin Luther King Early College (DPS)*
63.6
48.9
84.0
OTHER DISTRICTS



Sheridan H.S. (SHERIDAN)**
42.1
47.4
82.7
Adams City High School (ADAMS 14)
69.2
62.3
78.8
Alameda International H.S. (JEFFCO)
61.4
73.2
89.9
STATE AVERAGE
      37***
34.2%***
77.3
**In 2013, 46 MLK seniors entered post-secondary institutions in Colorado.  Of those, 22 required remedial classes.
**In 2013, 42 Sheridan seniors graduated (CDE). 19 went on to college, and of those, 9 required remedial classes.
***Of course it should be noted that these six high schools serve a high percentage of students from low-income families, and that, as the DHE reports states, in Colorado in 2013, “51% of Free and Reduced Lunch participants were not college ready at the time of enrollment compared to 28% of non-FRL students.”

Case in point: Sheridan – higher graduation rate = “quality of learning”?

This winter we read good news about a graduation rate of over 80% at Sheridan High School in 2014. 
According to 2014 graduation data released last week by the state, 80 percent of seniors who attended Sheridan High School, just south of Denver, completed their high school coursework in four years. That’s up from 60 percent the previous year.
“These numbers are a testament to what is happening at our high school,” said Michael Clough, Sheridan’s superintendent. “It’s also evidence of the quality of the learning coming up through our entire system.”  (http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/01/27/at-sheridan-high-school-an-all-in-approach-to-boost-graduation-rates/#.VXByls9Viko) (bold mine)

No, Mr. Clough, they do not.  Consider the pattern for Sheridan High students over three years:

2012
ACT – 16.7

2011
Average Cumulative GPA – of Sheridan High grads enrolling in a Colorado college – 2.50
2013
16.4

2012
2.46
2014
15.9

2013
2.38
*Colorado Department of High Education - http://highered.colorado.gov/Data/DistrictHSSummary.aspx

If I make a valid point regarding a handful of metro-area schools, I hope the state board realizes, sadly, that this is an issue for all of Colorado.  It is not just that remediation rates for the class of 2013 exceeded 60% in five DPS high schools; it is terribly high in Harrison (Sierra High– 54.3%) and in Pueblo (Central High-57.3%), at Sargent Jr.-Sr. High (73.7%) and at Monte Vista Sr. High (78.6%).   And across the state, again (and let’s recall, this figure does NOT include nearly half of the 2013 graduates who did NOT go on to college), the remediation rate is 34.2%.  The Denver Post’s headline cheered: “Fewer Colorado students take remedial classes to start college” (6/4/2015). My headline would be a simple: 34.2%!!!!!    

ACT results and remediation rates, I hope we agree, do tell us something important about the skills and knowledge of soon-to-graduate, and just-graduated, students.  But let’s admit it: in Colorado, in measuring the “quality of the learning,” our high school graduation rates say little.