Sept. 16, 2015
High schools in low-performing districts
need help
Though “only one test,” ACT results reminds
us why we should not wait until 2016-17 to act
Those who harp on the virtues of
local control versus the arrogance of state bureaucracy—i.e. policymakers at
the state capitol and the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) –(yes, I’ve
done some harping myself), need only look at our lowest-performing school
districts to admit: yes, there are situations where the state needs to step
in. Situations where the local school board,
superintendent, and district staff have demonstrated they are unable to bring
about significant improvement in their schools—and so the “the heavy hand of
the state,” if you want to see it that way, is necessary.
|
Many
of us applauded the Education Accountability Act of 2009 (SB 09-163); it set
the stage for a bigger state role in chronically low-performing school
districts. But six years later, the
state has now … hit the pause button.
|
I cheered last week when the
Colorado State Board of Education and CDE showed they are willing to assert
that some low-performing districts need to be told: we expect you to meet a higher
standard. The board accepted CDE’s recommendation
that the Sheridan School District remain on Priority
Improvement for the 4th straight year. In 2010 the district received an even lower
rating, Turnaround Plan, so it has
now entered Year 5 on Priority
Improvement or Turnaround. (http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/09/09/sheridan-loses-bid-to-upgrade-state-quality-rating/#.VfWn8xFVikq)
Sheridan can point to improvement
for students in grades 3-8, but there was little reason to say—if the state would
only ignore the results at SOAR (its Alternative Education Campus), the
district deserves a higher rating. Consider
two pieces of data. Put aside SOAR’s
results for the moment; what about Sheridan High? Are its students graduating
career or college ready? See page 3 for
recent ACT results. And note here the similar
scores for both schools on the state’s School Performance Rating in 2014:
SOAR - Academic Achievement - Does
Not Meet - 3.8 out of 15 points
SHERIDAN HIGH SCHOOL - Academic
Achievement - Does Not Meet - 3.8 out of 15 points
These details on Sheridan’s academic
results – TCAP scores – 2014 –explain the low score.
Academic Achievement Points Earned Points Eligible Rating
N %
Proficient/Advanced
Reading 1 4 Does Not Meet 174 42.0
Mathematics 1 4 Does Not Meet 173 9.3
Writing 1 4 Does Not Meet 174 24.7
N – Number of students taking the tests
Sadly, Sheridan High School is
not alone in chronic low achievement. I offer
a look here at five urban districts that, like Sheridan, have entered year 5 on
Priority Improvement or Turnaround (Adams 14, Pueblo 60,
Sheridan, and Westminster 50) on the District Performance Framework or, as with
Aurora Public Schools, is in year 4. Within these five districts we find—to no
one’s surprise—a number of our lowest-performing high schools. Any news on their progress?
With
new tests this past year, and many opt outs, any way to measure recent progress,
2014 to 2015?
As the Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) was
new to Colorado schools this past year, we do not have comparison data between
the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years, so we have no growth data—and therefore, understandably,
the state has allowed for a “time-out
for accreditation ratings.” Fair enough.
The ratings on
the State Performance Framework in 2014 will stand for 2015, except in
rare cases. This paucity of data
means these five low-performing school districts “on watch” will be given a reprieve—before
the state’s accountability clock starts ticking once again.
|
AV#88 - Aurora Central High – The Case
for State Intervention (Sept. 18, 2012)
AV#98 – Facts for a new superintendent (May
29, 2013)
AV#109 - Why turnaround schools do not turn around- One reason struggling schools fail to
make real progress: Aurora Central High as a case study (Feb. 12,
2014);
AV#116 – “Reporting” on Aurora
Public Schools: Let’s Not Get Ahead of Ourselves – Awaiting Evidence of Progress (July
16, 2014)
|
But this is no excuse for sitting on our hands this year. Anyone watching the way Aurora Public Schools
(APS) failed to address the struggling Aurora Central School throughout 2012 to
2014 (see box) should take heed: delay–and we only make the problem worse. One example of the district’s failure: APS
hires a new principal in 2013 for a school in desperate need of exceptional
leadership, a man whose record in California made him an odd choice (http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/education-news/roberts-out-as-fairfield-high-principal/).
This spring, déjà vu! The district
releases Mark Roberts from his duties and brings in a new principal - http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/06/17/struggling-aurora-central-high-will-have-new-leader-next-fall/#.Vfb1yhFViko).
“We will look
for a leader with the skills and experience to match the turnaround plan
developed for Aurora Central High School,” (APS spokesman Patti Moon) said.
Board member Mary Lewis said with the
changes coming for Central, a change at the school’s top job could prove
beneficial.
“Sometimes I think what’s needed is a set
of fresh eyes,” Lewis said.
Ms. Lewis: when you were on the
board in 2012, do you recall that on CDE’s new School Performance Rating, as I wrote three years ago (AV#88 - 9/18/12), “Aurora Central earned 37.6
points, a lower score than three much-discussed DPS high schools, West (44.2),
Montbello (41.3), and North (40.5). With
that score Aurora Central was to develop a Turnaround
Plan.” The district protested the low rating and the high school was put
instead on a Priority Improvement Plan. Remember?
Were APS board members paying attention when, as I pointed out in that
newsletter, Aurora Central’s graduation rate was 43% (2011), its remediation rate
73.8% (2011), and its ACT composite score was 14.9% (2012)?
Does anyone at APS take
responsibility for failing to understand the dire situation of Aurora Central in
2012, in 2013, in 2014…. “A set of fresh yes….”
Good grief.
ACT - One statewide test from 2014 to 2015
we can rely on
Aurora Public Schools is an
example of why the state has a role to play—if we believe public education
needs to be held accountable. Low-performing
districts find ways to turn a blind eye … or kick the can down the road. We cannot simply bide our time in 2015-16 and
see if the picture looks different a year from now. Besides, as of last week we do have some
data—with the release of the ACT scores.
My
commentary in The Denver Post last
July, “High school graduation rates aren’t necessarily a reason to celebrate,”
depended heavily on the ACT college readiness assessment. I do so again here, confident it is one test
juniors and seniors take seriously. I
see it in the 11th and 12th graders we work with in
College Track in Aurora (several seniors took the ACT again this past weekend),
and believe it is true across the state.
I heard thoughtful arguments from a few College Track students last year
on why they wanted to opt out of CMAS, but with the ACT, students know colleges and
universities pay attention. No one opt outs.
ACT scores – 2012-2015 - high schools in 5
districts on year 4 or 5 of accountability “clock”
|
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2014-15
|
|
STATE
|
20.0
|
20.14
|
20.31
|
20.1
|
down
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADAMS
COUNTY 14
|
15.31
|
15.9
|
15.99
|
15.6
|
down
|
|
Adams City High School *
|
15.55
|
16.15
|
16.12
|
15.9
|
down –
2nd straight year
|
|
Lester Arnold H.S.
|
13.33
|
13.57
|
14.86
|
12.8
|
down
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AURORA (Adams-Arapahoe)
|
16.72
|
17.12
|
17.23
|
17.0
|
down
|
|
Aurora Central H.S.
|
14.92
|
15.04
|
15.23
|
15.1
|
down
|
|
Aurora West College
|
--
|
17.65
|
17.03
|
16.8
|
down –
2nd straight year
|
|
Hinkley H.S.
|
16.91
|
17.11
|
16.96
|
17.0
|
up
|
|
Gateway H.S.
|
16.55
|
16.54
|
16.77
|
16.2
|
down
|
|
Rangeview H.S.
|
18.54
|
18.89
|
19.04
|
18.7
|
down
|
|
William Smith H.S.
|
18.42
|
18.28
|
17.83
|
17.4
|
down
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUEBLO
CITY 60
|
18.29
|
18.2
|
18.13
|
17.9
|
down-3rd straight year
|
|
Centennial H.S.
|
18.58
|
18.96
|
18.43
|
18.8
|
up
|
|
Central H.S.
|
17.1
|
16.95
|
16.39
|
16.6
|
down –
3rd straight year
|
|
Chavez/Huerta K-12 Prep. Academy
|
--
|
17.34
|
19.92
|
17.9
|
down
|
|
East H.S.
|
18.46
|
18.51
|
18.09
|
17.7
|
down –
2nd straight year
|
|
South H.S.
|
18.72
|
18.3
|
18.37
|
17.8
|
down –
3rd straight year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHERIDAN
|
16.7
|
16.08
|
15.45
|
15.1
|
down –
3rd straight year
|
|
Sheridan H.S.
|
16.7
|
16.36
|
15.94
|
15.5
|
down –
3rd straight year
|
|
SOAR Academy
|
--
|
14.94
|
14.08
|
-- (<16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WESTMINSTER 50
|
15.99
|
15.79
|
15.89
|
15.6
|
down
|
|
Hidden Lake H.S.
|
14.57
|
13.73
|
14.22
|
14.3
|
up
|
|
Westminster H.S.
|
16.26
|
16.12
|
16.16
|
15.9
|
down
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*In red – of special concern.
I hope those results remind the state
board and CDE why they have good reason to be troubled by the results of this
one assessment, where comparisons over time are possible. Yes, it’s “only one test,” but it is telling. Chalkbeat
Colorado’s analysis expanded on the possible consequences:
At
Colorado’s lowest performing high schools, ACT scores aren’t climbing
ACT scores at five of the state’s chronically low-performing
high schools didn’t see the kind of increases likely needed to stave off state
sanctions. … High schools, like middle and elementary campuses, are rated on
how well students do on the state’s standardized tests. However, student
results on the ACT and graduation rates are also factored into a high school’s
rating. If a school’s composite ACT score doesn’t climb, its state rating
likely won’t either. If a school is dubbed as either “turnaround” or “priority
improvement” by the state for more than five years in a row, the state may ask
the school district running the school to close it or turn it over to a charter
school.
From Chalkbeat Colorado – http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/09/11/what-we-learned-from-colorados-act-scores-in-four-graphs/#.Vfmc4hFViko. See graph that includes Aurora Central and
Adams City High.
Reassuring words? Realistic targets?
“Local control” – if it means the
local school districts have the authority and responsibility to lead
improvement efforts in their communities, and that’s why the state should not play
the Big Bad Wolf and threaten to blow their schools down when results look bad,
is often an excuse for inaction. When I
listen to the words of leaders from our lowest-performing school districts “on
the clock,” I only grow more doubtful that “local control,” in their hands,
makes sense. Unkind of me, and perhaps unfair. But I hope community members in
these districts are listening to “goals” like these….
Adams 14 - March 2014: “Our goal is to improve from
‘priority improvement’ to ‘distinction,’ said Kathy Steel, assistant
superintendent for Adams 14, referencing the state’s accreditation rating. “People are talking about going from worst to
first. Our people are determined.”
Members
of the state board applauded the district’s efforts but wondered if the
district, which self-admittedly has much more room to improve, would beat the
clock.
“We’ll
be sliding in sideways,” said (superintendent Pat) Sanchez, who has been a
vocal critic of (the) state’s accountability clock.
http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/04/10/struggling-districts-share-success-with-state-board/#.Vfmd3RFViko
Pueblo 60 - August 2014: On the transition as new superintendent Constance Jones took over:
“We cannot—we will not—miss a beat,” said Kathy
DeNiro, the board’s president and former district administrator. For now, Jones is carrying on the belief that
Pueblo will beat the clock in time. “I absolutely have a concern and feel a
sense of urgency,” Jones told The
Pueblo Chieftain. “But I’m also very confident, based on the conversations
I’ve already had, that we will make the improvements we need to make in order
to reset the clock and to make the progress we need to become accredited at the
highest level of distinction.”
A year later … on their way to
distinction?
Two words apply: GET REAL!
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
No comments:
Post a Comment