June 4, 2014
Questions continue on rationale
for more AP classes
in our lowest-performing high
schools
Turning
around our lowest-performing high schools is a huge challenge. Recent reports critical of the state’s
oversight of federal dollars to transform dozens of schools (Colorado's Turnaround Schools
2010-2013: Make a Wish - by A Plus Denver) and of Denver Public Schools’
efforts to improve its high schools (Beyond Averages: School Quality in Denver Public
Schools – by the Donnell-Kay Foundation; see box) point
out a number of ways in which we are falling short.
|
“In secondary grades, the overwhelming
majority of quality schools are charters, all but two of whom serve a
substantial majority of low-income kids. The scarcity of district-operated
quality schools overall and particularly serving low-income kids is
apparent….
“The inability of DPS to operate quality
schools serving secondary grades either by opening new schools or by
improving existing schools is deeply concerning. Indeed, the lack of progress
in this area over the past five years should greatly temper the enthusiasm
over the district’s aggregated scores overall and raise serious questions
about the efficacy of many of its policies….
“… the district’s attempts to open its
own new schools, and particularly to improve its continuing schools serving
secondary grades, have yielded remarkably little. These strategies, which
compose the vast majority of the district’s efforts, do not appear to have
provided any meaningful return.”
|
My argument in the pages that follow may seem trivial[1]: to criticize one specific effort to improve several of our lowest-performing
high schools. You might say, OK, perhaps
expanding Advanced Placement offerings in these schools is a mistake, but
what’s the harm? It is not like this
additional program is a deal-breaker on whether these schools will survive the
state’s newest measures on accountability (SB 163).
True.
But I think adding one more program—of dubious value for such schools—says a
lot about the critical issue of how these schools do or do not improve. At
times the tendency is to JUST SAY YES to any offer, without establishing clear
priorities and carefully selecting new programs to see that they are aligned
with these priorities.[2] Adding one more program also says
a good deal about some of us who want to help.
The school says yes—sometimes more for the additional dollars than for
any sound educational reason; the funders feel they are helping those in
greatest need. And yet the students are
not well served, and the school fails to tackle more fundamental concerns that
have brought it to this sad state. Closure,
or phase out, seems only closer.
I have no doubt that there are
schools where many students who can benefit from challenging, perhaps
college-level classes, have been shut out of such rigorous coursework. And that in many cases the students excluded
from such classes have been low-income and minority students. An
assistant principal tells me: “It’s an access issue.” I get it. There is an injustice here that we
should correct.
But all I have learned about adding Advanced Placement classes in a
number of our lowest-performing schools leads me to question this strategy, as
I did a year ago (Another View #95 -“Mismatch – Adding more AP classes in low-performing schools," March, 26, 2013).
|
Denver Public Schools seems
proud of the work it has done to expand the number of students taking AP
classes. Its website highlights
improvements made since launching The Denver Plan in 2005, including this
bullet:
·
“We
have doubled the number of high school students who take Advanced Placement
(AP) courses or concurrently enroll in college programs.” http://www.teachindenver.com/about-dps/the-denver-plan.html
|
(NOTE:
Former DPS principals Rob Stein and Scott Mendelsburg sent notes supporting my
theme.) Over a year later, with more evidence
now in from several schools that have expanded AP offerings, I wish to take
another look. Perhaps I was wrong.
A second reason for this newsletter:
having studied and written about a number of the state’s lowest-performing
schools receiving federal and state funds to support “turnarounds”—the School
Improvement Grant—a red flag went up when I learned that two of the four
schools to receive SIG funds this year, Bruce Randolph in Denver and Aurora
Central High, participate in this AP push.
Exactly NOT what they need, in my opinion. Results for 2013 at both schools—see the pages
that follow—confirm my doubts.
A third reason is the inaccurate reporting from the Colorado Legacy
Foundation (as it was known until its recent name change, now the Colorado
Education Initiative) about its AP initiative in 13 Colorado high schools. If its November press release of “70% increase in Advanced Placement scores” in 2012-13 were
true, then perhaps I needed to rethink my position. But what information the Colorado Legacy
Foundation has made available comes
nowhere close to supporting that claim (I see a 33% increase in the number
achieving qualifying scores in 2012-13).
And what the CLF has not made
available to me or has made public only adds to my doubts.
|
"Some
of my students are prepared, but others are very underprepared...this is
supposed to be a college-level class and yet very few of my students do their
homework. As a result, I have to spend a lot of class time letting them do
the work they were supposed to do at home." AP English Language teacher. From
Denver and Aurora High Schools: Crisis
and Opportunity
|
To be clear, I did not and do not question the overall
effort by Denver Public Schools, the Colorado Legacy Foundation, and the
College Board—among others—to increase the number of students taking AP
classes. What I do question is pushing
this initiative in schools where such a low-percentage of 10th grade
students perform at grade level, where the average ACT scores for juniors are
far below college-ready, where over 60% of those who do graduate and head off to college are found not ready for college classes[3]—which causes them to take remedial work, which often seems one
roadblock too many, decreasing the likelihood that they will ever graduate even
with just a two-year degree. Would it
not be more helpful to redesign junior and senior year to help these students ,
first, graduate, and second, receive a high school degree that means they have achieved 12th
grade proficiency in reading, writing, and math?
Much in this AP push strikes me as a terrible
misuse of time and money.
1.
Update from last year - Five Denver schools
First a quick update. Last
year I pointed to five Denver high schools (including Bruce Randolph)
where the jump in the number of students taking AP classes since 2008 indicates
the district’s “push,” but where less than 20% of the students who took the AP
tests passed. (See Addendum B for
passing rates in Denver Public Schools- 39.3% in 2013. See Addendum C
for the percentage of Colorado students receiving 3’s: 62.2%.) I now add the
equally bleak 2013 results at these five DPS high schools.
2013 AP
Tests Passed by School
|
|
2012
|
2013
|
Current status
|
||||
|
5 Denver high schools
|
Number tested
|
Number passed
|
AP Pass rate
|
Number tested
|
Number passed
|
AP Pass rate
|
School Performance Framework
|
|
Bruce
Randolph
(gr.
6-12)
|
117
|
22*
|
19%
|
155
|
30
|
19%
|
SPF-Priority Improvement-
Receiving federal
School Improvement Grant
|
|
West
|
73
|
12
|
16%
|
21
|
4
|
19%
|
SPF- Turnaround
Being phased out
|
|
Martin
Luther King Jr. Early College (gr. 6-12)
|
130
|
18
|
14%
|
141
|
20
|
14%
|
SPF- Performance
|
|
Manual
|
63
|
6
|
10%
|
79
|
1
|
1%
|
SPF- Turnaround
Mid-year leadership change
|
|
Montbello
|
312
|
25
|
8%
|
208
|
16
|
8%
|
SPF- Turnaround
Being phased out
|
|
TOTALS
at 5 schools
|
695
|
83
|
11.9%
|
604
|
71
|
11.7%
|
|
Figures from DPS Office of Accountability, Research and Evaluation-http://testing.dpsk12.org/reseach_eval/reports/test_results/AP/AP_results.htm.
Randolph, MLK, and Manual—unwisely, in my view—all
continued to increase the number tested in 2013; Montbello and West, both being
phased out, finally began to reduce the number of students taking AP
classes. Who would argue that the four
schools above on Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plans have benefited from
Denver Public School’s push to expand AP classes?
A closer look at the results at Bruce Randolph—please
remember, a school now receiving close to $1.4 million in federal funds for
improvement—is even more disturbing. The
figures above INCLUDE the school’s strong scores on the Spanish AP. When the Spanish AP results are not included, the passing rate at Bruce Randolph falls from 19% to
4%. Out of 126 tested, only 5 achieved a
qualifying score.
AP Exam Scores: Bruce Randolph High School
|
WITH Spanish Language scores
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
# Tested
222
|
|
110
|
117
|
155
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
# Passed
51
|
|
2
|
22
|
30
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
% Passed
23%
|
|
2%
|
19%
|
19%
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
WITHOUT Spanish Language scores
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
2. Two
schools in the CLF AP Initiative – Abraham Lincoln and Aurora Central
When
the Colorado Legacy Foundation included two low-performing Denver-area high
schools in its AP initiative last year—Abraham Lincoln in DPS and Aurora
Central—I doubted these would be a good fit.
Was I wrong? Here are 2012 and
2013 AP results side by side. (Data here is from the two school districts[4]; as I explain in section 3, CLF would not release school by school
information. CLF’s focus, I realize, is math, science, and English courses, while
the figures from DPS and APS include all AP classes.)
2
low-performing high schools with high poverty, high minority enrollment-
where CLF’s AP initiative began in 2012-13
|
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
||||
|
|
Number
tested
|
Number
passed
|
AP
Pass rate
|
Number
tested
|
Number
passed
|
AP
Pass rate
|
|
Abraham
Lincoln-DPS
|
421
|
100
|
24%
|
449
|
107
|
24%
|
In the
first year of CLF’s initiative with Abraham Lincoln, the percentage of students
passing the AP tests was unchanged; less than one-quarter of the AP tests were scored
at a 3 or better.
|
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
||||||
|
|
Total AP students
|
# of exams
|
AP students with scores of 3+
|
% of Total AP students w/ scores of 3+
|
Total AP
students
|
# of exams
|
AP students w/ scores of 3+
|
% of Total AP students w/ scores of 3+
|
|
Aurora Central –
Aurora School District
|
80
|
119
|
29
|
36.3%
|
150
|
237
|
33
|
22%
|
In the first year of CLF’s initiative with Aurora Central, while the
number of students taking AP class nearly doubled (80 in 2012 to 150 in 2013)
and the number of AP exams taken doubled (119 in 2012 to 237 in 2013), only four more students received a 3 or better in 2013 or than in 2012 (33 compared to 29).
Leading to a significant drop in the percentage of students scoring 3 or
better—from 36.3% to 22%.
(See below[5] for a six-year picture of AP scores at Aurora Central.)
Together,
at the two schools, 11 more students were able to score a 3 or better on AP
tests in 2013 than in 2012.
As is
the case with Bruce Randolph, a closer look at the results at Abraham Lincoln,
with and without the AP Spanish test, reveals the consistently low percentage
of students who pass the other tests.
AP Exam Scores: Abraham Lincoln High School
|
With
Spanish Language scores
|
|
||||
|
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
|
|
# Tested
|
375
|
397
|
421
|
449
|
|
|
# Passed
|
76
|
59
|
100
|
107
|
|
|
% Passed
|
20%
|
15%
|
24%
|
24%
|
|
|
Without Spanish Language scores
|
|
||||
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
||
|
# Tested
|
296
|
358
|
355
|
366
|
|
|
# Passed
|
20
|
31
|
46
|
39
|
|
|
% Passed
|
7%
|
9%
|
13%
|
11%
|
|
|
“The problem at GW, several students said, is the ‘closedness’
of the IB program combined with what they said was the poor quality of the
school’s honors and Advanced Placement classes leaves motivated students not
in the IB program with no real recourse. One
student said she was so poorly prepared by her AP Spanish class this semester
that she wept while taking the AP exam because she knew she had no chance of
passing.” (bold mine) http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/05/09/proposed-changes-to-storied-program-roil-denver-high-school/#.U3j0lMakptw.
|
That a good number of students take Spanish Language
AP at Abraham Lincoln and Bruce Randolph and that such a high percentage do so
well is impressive. In 2013 the pass
rate on the Spanish Language AP at Lincoln was 82% (68/83), and at Bruce
Randolph it was 86% (25/29). Such
stellar results show that this college level course is a good fit at these
schools—and a real success. But
separating those figures from the other AP tests taken reveals shockingly low
passing rates: English Language & Composition: 3 out of 75 earned a
qualifying score; Physics B: 1 out of
37; European History: 0 out of 40. When
the Spanish AP results are not included, the passing rate at Abraham Lincoln
falls from 24% to 11%.
3.
Colorado Legacy Foundation
announces 2013 results
Another
reason for my follow-up this spring is because of CLF’s report last November. It announced a “70% increase in Advanced
Placement scores” at its 13 schools “during the 2012-13 school year.”
(Bold mine; you will soon see why.) I
was eager to learn more, for if it showed this kind of success in the
lowest-performing schools I had written about a year ago, I was surely wrong to
question its AP Initiative in such schools.
As presented by the Colorado Legacy Foundation in
its press release, here was the good news:
Program to Close
Achievement Gap Celebrates Record Gains - November 19, 2013
DENVER, CO – Today the Colorado Legacy Foundation (CLF) in partnership
with the National Math and Science Initiative (NMSI) announced a 70 percent
increase in Advanced Placement (AP) scores for the 13 schools supported by
the Colorado Legacy Schools initiative during the 2012-2013 school year. The
Colorado Legacy Schools initiative is a local replication of NMSI’s proven
Comprehensive AP Program, which has demonstrated an unprecedented track record
closing the achievement gap and increasing college readiness.
“The Colorado Legacy Schools
initiative is about changing the culture of learning environments so that every
student has the opportunity to receive the support they need to succeed in AP
coursework,” said Dr. Helayne Jones, President and CEO of the Colorado Legacy
Foundation.
“These results represent a 70
percent increase in the number of students who earned a passing score of
three or more on the math, science and English AP exam. These outstanding
results equate to 522 new high school students who have had the
opportunity to participate and succeed in rigorous AP coursework.”[6] (Bold mine)
EdNewsColorado, Nov. 20, 2013, followed up with a story that repeated the same
highlights, “AP scores, participation jump under pilot program” (http://www.ednewscolorado.org/brief_text/ap-scores-participation-jump-under-pilot-program), and the Arvada Press posted its own cheerful piece about its local high school students,
“Nonprofit Group Lauds AP,” (http://arvadapress.com/stories/Nonprofit-group-lauds-AP-students,10019).
|
I used this quote over a year ago; it
comes from a Denver Post article
back in 2010 titled: “Denver schools push for students to take tougher
courses.” I believe the 2013 AP
results in the schools I highlight here make Sadler’s point as relevant today
as it was back then.
“Some
critics are questioning the increased ubiquitousness of AP — courses designed
to push the highest achieving students that are now being offered to
everyone.
“‘AP doesn't solve the problem of kids
coming into high school ill-prepared,’ said Philip M. Sadler, a senior
lecturer in astronomy at Harvard University and editor of the book, AP: A Critical Examination of the
Advanced Placement Program.
“‘It's for the kids who are champing at
the bit and are really well prepared for college,’ he said. ‘Americans just
love these easy solutions. If we put AP in all schools in the country,
somehow kids will know more math, be harder working and go to college. Show
me the research.’” (Denver schools push for students to
take tougher courses - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/ci_16254380#ixzz325kzHO7r)
|
It turns out, however, that a “70 percent increase” for 2012-13 is misleading.
I began
asking the Colorado Legacy Foundation for the details behind its 2013 report. On Nov. 22, 2013, CLF sent me a one pager; it correctly stated at the
top “First Year Growth.” I responded
that day with a request for the information on passing rates at each of the 13
Legacy schools. I added in my email: “Still trying to understand if there is a significant
difference in the kind of schools where the AP effort does and perhaps does not
have a big impact.” Dr. Greg Hessee,
Director of Initiatives, Colorado Legacy Schools, wrote me on Dec. 9: “I’d be happy to provide you the growth of our
individual schools in terms of enrollment and, separately, qualifying scores.”
Over the next
four months I sent reminders and received assurances that the information I had
asked for would be made available.[7] It took until April 18 before I was finally told
that CLF would not release the school-by-school data.
On February Hessee sent a helpful page with overall
figures for Cohort 0 and Cohort 1. It revealed
how CLF probably came up with its 70% figure.
“First year growth” combined the phenomenal growth at the three Colorado
Springs-area schools where the effort began in 2011-12 (Cohort 0), with the
first year growth of the second group of 10 schools (Cohort 1), where its work
began in 2012-13. Two different years, and not
what CLF stated were the 2012-13 results.
(Its own figures actually show “first-year growth” to be 68%.)
Here is my presentation of the data. The Cohort 0 and Cohort 1 data for 2011,
2012, and 2013 – in black - comes
from CLF. The TOTALS at the bottom and the
two columns on the right—in blue—are my own calculations. Rather than totaling
results for “first year growth,” my version tracks the changes from year to year, and shows the increase
in numbers and passing rates between 2011-12
and 2012-13.
Cohort 0: 3 high schools serving military families: Fountain Fort Carson, Mesa Ridge, and
Widefield High.
Cohort 1: 10 high schools: Abraham
Lincoln; Aurora Central; Arvada High (Jefferson County); Centennial High
(Pueblo City); Northglenn High (Adams 12); Vista Ridge High (Falcon 49); James Irwin High (Harrison 2); and
Central High, Grand Junction High, and Fruita Monument High (all three in Mesa
County 51).
|
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2012 to 2013
|
|
|
Cohort 0 - 3 schools
|
# Exams
Taken
|
# Exams Taken
|
# Exams Taken
|
|
|
|
|
BEFORE AP INITIATIVE BEGAN
|
FIRST YEAR of AP INITIATIVE
|
2nd YEAR of AP INITIATIVE
|
|
|
|
|
86
|
623
|
865
|
242 more
|
39% growth in # taking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Qualifying
scores
|
Qualifying scores
|
Qualifying scores
|
|
|
|
|
48
|
256
|
283
|
27 more
|
10% growth in # passing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohort 1 - 10 schools
|
|
BEFORE AP INITIATIVE BEGAN
|
FIRST YEAR of AP INITIATIVE
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,630
|
2,509
|
879 more
|
54% growth in # taking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Qualifying scores
|
Qualifying scores
|
|
|
|
|
|
685
|
972
|
287 more
|
42% growth in # passing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012
|
2013
|
|
|
|
TOTALS
-
13
schools
|
|
# Exams Taken
|
# Exams Taken
|
Growth in #s taking
|
% growth in #s taking
|
|
|
|
2,253
|
3,374
|
1,121
|
50%
|
|
|
|
Qualifying scores
|
Qualifying scores
|
Growth in #s
passing
|
% growth in #s passing
|
|
|
|
941
|
1,255
|
314
|
33%
|
So CLF’s press release was inaccurate in stating the growth in
qualifying scores had jumped 70% “during the 2012-2013 school year.” If my math is correct, CLF’s figures show that
the growth in qualifying scores in 2012-13 was 33% (1,255/941=1.33), a far cry
from 70%, or 68%. And they show that 314 more students took and passed AP tests
in 2013 over the total in 2012—not 522.
|
From “Rethinking Advanced Placement,” New York Times, Jan. 7, 2011: “So perhaps it is no surprise that while
the number of students taking the A.P. biology test has more than doubled
since 1997, the mean score has dropped to 2.63, from 3.18. On the exam last May, slightly under half
of the test-takers scored at least a 3, which equates to a C in a college
course. And while 19 percent of students earned 5’s, almost twice that many
got 1’s, which could be a failing grade in college.”
|
CLF’s own data reveals another disturbing story for 2012-13. The year before its initiative, at these 10
high schools in Cohort 1, 120 out of 534 Free and Reduced Lunch students scored
a 3 or better – a passing rate of 22.5%.
In 2012-13, 840 FRL students took an AP class, but less than one-fifth
of them (19.5%) achieved a qualifying score: 164 out of 840. Yes, far too often
low-income students capable of rigorous high school courses have been excluded
from such courses; but we also know that that the majority of FRL students in
10th grade (see TCAP results) and 11th grade (see ACT
scores) do not perform at grade level. It
is hard to see how the AP initiative proved of much benefit to the FRL students
at these 10 high schools.
At the new
website for the Colorado Education Initiative we read: “Today, we act as the innovation and R & D
partner for CDE.” My newsletter last year quoted Dr. Jones’ assertion that
“major requirements for funding happen around year three, and that’s when we’ll
have good hard data showing results of the program-which will make it easier
for fundraising.”[8] Year three of this
effort has now ended. Funders will no
doubt expect to see the hard data, school by school, that was not made
available to me. And I trust the Colorado
Department of Education will require a greater degree of transparency from its
“R & D partner” than I have seen on this specific initiative.
**
You ask: so what do you recommend? To repeat my conclusion of a year ago: “…what
we may need to admit is that AP FOR
ALL is an easy answer. It doesn’t
require the more difficult work of figuring how to adapt curriculum and
instruction to help a 10th grader move from unsatisfactory to
proficient by the time he or she graduates—or to wrestle with bigger questions
about the impersonal structure of our large high schools, and much more.”
It is encouraging to learn of such an effort,
as in this Education Week story, “‘Transitional’
Classes Gain Ground In States as College-Prep Strategy,” now under way in eight
states. [9] Studies on these courses seem promising.[10] And for
those who have graduated, but who need remediation on arriving at college, it
is good to learn of new ways Metro State and a few community colleges are supporting
students freshman year without insisting they take classes (that earn them no
college credit) to “catch up.”
But in our high schools, especially those
where most juniors and seniors are not
at grade level, let’s “meet students
where they are.” Revise and adjust what is taught. Help students finish up
college-ready. This will be a far better use of time and resources
than adding AP classes at schools like Bruce Randolph where—the Spanish AP’s
exempted—just 5 out of 126 passed in 2013. What’s the point of that?
Addendum A - Two A Plus Denver reports
1. From Start
with the Facts 2013 – Progress Report:
Adequate is not Enough
“Advanced
Placement pass rates are another measure of whether kids are successful,
indicating academic rigor and college-readiness. [In Denver Public Schools] Overall, there has been improvement
between 2009 and 2013. Pass rates went from 33.6 percent to 39.6 percent
(returning to where they had been pre-2009 when fewer students took exam. Note
that the national pass rate for high school juniors is 59.96 percent)….
“Except for
DSST-Stapleton, the pass rate for low-income kids is below 50 percent at every
school. At 78 percent, DSST has the highest AP test pass rate overall and
highest percentage of low-income students (65 percent). Fifty-five tests were
passed by low-income students at DSST compared to 165 tests by non-low income
students.
“In volume, the
schools where the highest numbers of tests were passed by low-income students
were Lincoln (104) and East (67). The highest pass rates among low-income
students were at DSST (65%), DSA (49%), and KIPP (42%). The lowest pass rates
were West (0%), Manual (1%), Montbello (8%), and CEC (8%).
“While the number of kids taking and passing
tests may be increasing, it’s important to understand that this does not
necessarily mean that rigor and readiness is rising equally among all kids.”
(bold mine) (http://www.aplusdenver.org/work/StartwiththeFacts2013.pdf - page 4)
2.
From Denver and Aurora High Schools: Crisis and
Opportunity (2013)
“To incentivize
AP participation over the past few years, DPS has offered School Performance
Framework points to schools who enroll students in AP classes (and/or encourage
them to take the AP exams). The intention on DPS’ part is to ‘make sure our
students are ready for the next step in their education, so that they have a
real shot at the future they see for themselves.’ These incentives to increase
AP participation have worked.
“Between 2008
and 2012, 2,095 additional AP tests were taken in Denver—a 174% jump and
substantial increase considering that student population in the district only
rose 14% over this period. These statistics have been used to imply that more
students are college ready, and it is true that as more students have tested, more
have passed. However, a consistently low percentage of students continue to
pass the AP tests. The national pass rate is 56% while Denver’s hovers around
37%. At seven high schools, fewer than one in four students pass the exam.
These low pass rates signal that while many students take the AP classes, few
master the material.
“… Regardless of the reason for low pass
rates, participation rates should not be interpreted as proof that more
students are college ready. Whether or not taking AP unprepared to pass is
‘good’ or ‘bad,’ most agree that the impact is magnified when students are
prepared for the class.” (bold mine) (http://www.aplusdenver.org/_docs/HighSchoolFinal4.11.13.pdf - pages 7-8)
|
Advanced Placement - 2013
|
|
National pass rate –
60%
Colorado pass rate –
62.2%
DPS pass rate- 39.3%
Pass rate at 5 DPS
high schools* – 11.7%
*(See box page 3)
|
Addendum
B
DPS
– number tested and percentage of AP tests earning a qualifying score – over eight
years*
|
|
2005-06
|
2006-07
|
2007-08
|
2008-09
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
|
Number tested
|
2,261
|
2,752
|
2,836
|
3,508
|
4,115
|
4,587
|
4,950
|
5,608
|
|
Percentage of AP tests taken that earned a qualifying
score
|
41%
|
37.6%
|
37.8%
|
33.6%
|
35.9%
|
34.6%
|
37.3%
|
39.3%
|
DPS
– number tested and percentage of AP tests earning a qualifying score – over
seven years*
|
|
2005-06
|
2006-07
|
2007-08
|
2008-09
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
’06 to ’13 change
|
|
All Language Tests
|
239
47.3%
|
231
47.2%
|
252
57.5%
|
160 60%
|
300
63.7%
|
283
61.8%
|
405
66.4%
|
406
68.7%
|
+20.4%
|
|
All Science Tests
|
315
36.2%
|
392
43.1%
|
412
39.1%
|
479
36.7%
|
594
36.5%
|
776 39%
|
665 41.7%
|
994
43.8%
|
+7.6%
|
|
AP Math Tests
|
221
35.7%
|
312
33.7%
|
377
39%
|
402
43.5%
|
464
47.8%
|
502
43.2%
|
590
40.7%
|
630
41.9%
|
+6.2%
|
|
All Social Science Tests
|
860
37.9%
|
949
31.9%
|
974
27.9%
|
1,365 26.2%
|
1,372 29.7%
|
1,712 26.1%
|
1,901 30.6%
|
2080
33%
|
-4.9%
|
|
All Arts Tests
|
77
64.9%
|
84
38.1%
|
90
63.3%
|
70
45.7%
|
166
51.2%
|
146
43.2%
|
137
56.2%
|
135
57.8%
|
-7.1%
|
|
All Literature Tests
|
549
46.3%
|
784
40.4%
|
731
39.5%
|
1032
33.1%
|
1218
29.3%
|
1164
32.7%
|
1,256
31.4%
|
1,363
33.3%
|
-13%
|
*Figures taken from 2006-10 scores reported
Feb. 2, 2011, and from 2008-12 scores reported Sept. 12, 2012, DPS Office of
Accountability, Research and Evaluation; where the two reports had different
numbers for 2008 – 2010, the figures used here are from most recent report. 2012-13 figures taken from the 2013 report.
Addendum C
From Chalkbeat Colorado, Feb. 11, 2014
Colorado ranked ninth in the
country for the number of students scoring highly enough on Advanced Placement
exams to be eligible for college credit, according to a new report released
Tuesday.
The exam scores, which are administered by the College Board, are
supposed to test mastery of college-level studies. The exams are scored on a
scale of one to five –a score three of better can qualify a student for college
credit.
Colorado’s students have
ranked in the top 10 for performance on the exams for the past seven years.
This year, almost 40 percent of Colorado students took at least one AP exam,
higher than the national average of 33. Of those, 62.2 percent receive a three
or better on at least one exam.
The number of students
taking AP exams in Colorado increased this year as well, to 19,446. The state
has seen a steady increase over the past decade in the number of students in
all groups taking the exams. http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/02/11/colorado-ranks-ninth-for-high-scores-on-ap-exams/
[1] It is less trivial when Colorado legislators propose an
Advanced Placement incentive bill, or when Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan
asks Congress for $300 million to close the achievement gap, and specifically mentions
“more AP classes” as one way the funds could help accomplish that (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2014/05/arne_duncan_spotlights_inequit.html).
[2] Aurora Central High School—one of the schools featured
in this newsletter—had a new principal, Mark Roberts, this past fall. In October,
in front of the APS school board, Roberts summarized improvement efforts since
he arrived, and spoke of “approximately 71 new implementations introduced” at Aurora
Central. Yes, 71. A school that the year before said yes to more AP classes …
perhaps a school that too often says, “Yes,
let’s do that too.” But as for two
or three priorities … ?
[3]
Remediation rates, ACT scores, & %
proficient/advanced on TCAP at 4 high schools expanding AP offerings - 2013
|
|
Remediation rates **
|
ACT scores – 11th grade
Composite
Reading
|
TCAP – 10th grade
Reading
Math
|
||
|
Aurora
Central-APS*
|
68.1%
|
15
|
14.7
|
35%.
|
11.7%
|
|
Abraham
Lincoln – DPS*
|
65.1%
|
15.6
|
13.7
|
37.9%
|
10.6%
|
|
Bruce
Randolph – DPS
|
62.5%
|
15.2
|
15.1
|
35.7%
|
6.3%
|
|
South
High – DPS*
|
67%
|
16.4
|
16.5
|
43.1%
|
17.1%
|
*Aurora Central & Abraham Lincoln are part of Colorado
Legacy’s “cohort 1”; South High is part of “cohort 2.” **http://highered.colorado.gov/Publications/Reports/Remedial/FY2013/2013_Remedial_relmay14.pdf
[4] The school-specific information here comes from two
local districts that provide a breakdown of passing scores at their high
schools: Aurora Public Schools and DPS.
DPS includes numbers for each of the AP tests taken at each high school.
For example, it provides the number tested for each of the 28 different AP
tests taken by East High’s students, and the number who passed whenever the
total tested was at least 16. Note,
however, that DPS and Aurora use different ways to record their results.
The percentage in
Denver is based on the number of AP tests passed out of the number taken. The percentage in Aurora is based on the number of students who pass any one of the tests out of the total
number of individual
students taking the AP tests (33 out of 150). If the percentage at Aurora Central were
based on Denver’s formula, the figure would be well below 22%.
|
|
||||||
|
|
2007-08
|
2008-09
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
|
Total AP Students
|
128
|
113
|
144
|
136
|
80
|
150
|
|
Number of Exams
|
165
|
135
|
180
|
193
|
119
|
237
|
|
AP Students with Scores 3+
|
17
|
28
|
29
|
38
|
29
|
33
|
|
% of Total AP Students with Scores 3+
|
13.3%
|
24.8%
|
20.1%
|
27.9%
|
36.3%
|
22.0%
(33/150)
|
[6]Link no longer accessible, but it was: http://colegacy.org/2013/11/program-to-close-achievement-gap-celebrates-record-gains/; data currently on Colorado
Education Initiative’s website about the AP initiative only mentions 2011-12
results at the first three high schools: http://www.coloradoedinitiative.org/our-work/colorado-legacy-schools/results/.
[7]Responding to my emails, Hessee sent emails on 1/31/14, 2/20/14, 2/27/14, 3/3/14, and 4/16/14 assuring me the information would be forthcoming. I requested a
meeting and again understood the results would be made available. But two days later
I was told that CLF would not provide the
school-by-school data. I shared my
disappointment about this with Dr. Helayne Jones, President and CEO of CLF. Her
response pointed out that “we have agreements
with the schools we fund regarding release of data. We cannot and will
not violate the relationships we have with our school and district partners,
nor do I believe you would want us to.”
True, but why couldn’t I have been told this four months earlier? (http://www.coloradoedinitiative.org/who-we-are/history-accomplishments/)
[8] “Colorado Legacy Foundation wins $10.5 million grant
to push AP courses,” The Denver Post,
Feb. 10, 2012, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19712351#ixzz2NX3ls9na.
[9] Education Week,
Feb. 19, 2014 - http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/02/19/21highschool.h33.html?tkn=VTWFHJaa6Keteaye5vUVRZQr4j5ez0EmVBe7&cmp=clp-edweek
[10] Reshaping the
College Transition: States That Offer Early College Readiness Assessments and
Transition Curriculum, May, 2013 - http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/reshaping-the-college-transition-state-scan.pdf, and Reshaping
the College Transition: Early College Readiness Assessments and Transition Curricula in Four States, Nov. 2013, http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/reshaping-college-transition.pdf
Another View, a newsletter by Peter
Huidekoper, Jr., represents his own opinion and is not intended to represent
the view of any organization he is associated with. Comments are welcome. 303-757-1225 / peterhdkpr@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment