.
Oct. 29, 2012
On NOT TURNING AROUND SCHOOLS:
Too Quick to Celebrate, Too Eager to Point
Fingers, and
Too Happy to Make Much Ado About All Too
Little
Yes,
this dog is still wrestling with the same old bone.
Turnaround
schools in Colorado. Schools with
chronic low achievement in need of major change.
I was
thrilled to see over 60 folks turn out Oct. 16 in Denver for the policy forum,
“Early Lessons from Denver’s Far Northeast Turnaround Efforts.” We heard reports from those leading the work
in DPS, as well as from the Colorado Department of Education on the state’s
role (expanded by SB 163) with low-performing schools, and from professors at
the University of Colorado at Denver on both state policy and on the innovative
approaches being taken in Louisiana, Tennessee, and elsewhere. The community of folks here deeply concerned
about these schools is growing. It is good to see. After all, when we speak of schools in “the
bottom 5%,” where low-achievement persists, we may be talking about 30,000
Colorado students.
|
Growth – or achievement? (Part
1)
Colorado
education has a right to be proud of its attention to growth, but we must not
let it trump our focus on achievement.
Expanding our measurement of student outcomes by including growth has
been critical to developing a more just and comprehensive presentation of the
work of our schools. It is especially
important as we look closely at schools with a high percentage of low-income
students, and as we measure teacher effectiveness.
But to
tell our kids, “Way to go! We see growth!” when it is just average—when these
students have so far yet to go to be proficient as readers and writers, to be
at grade level in math and in science—strikes me as too kind. If not slightly dishonest. We do a disservice to celebrate growth if
we are not equally truthful about achievement.
From Conclusion,
page 12
|
So I
hope there is an audience for this newsletter, a closer look at how three other
districts with turnaround schools have responded to reports and data released
after the first two years of the $37.7 million three-year School Improvement
Grant from the federal government. In Another View #89, “$14.8 million over three-years
to turnaround efforts at six DPS schools - Are grants for year three (2012-13)
warranted?” I looked closely at the six Denver schools that were eligible
to receive the SIG funds over three years, 2010-11 to 2012-13. I found little to celebrate. I knew full well my report was incomplete; in
its far more comprehensive and slightly sunnier report, Colorado Turnaround Schools - Rays of Hope, A Plus Denver looked
across the state and included the schools funded by the second round of SIG
funds in 2011. Among the most
encouraging findings in Denver were the positive first-year stories from the
schools established in and around Montbello High School and Rachel Noel Middle
School. In my defense, there was no
mention of this idea in the initial $6 million request by DPS and those two schools
in 2010 (see http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/dl/ti_sitig_DPS.pdfh,
pages 106-152 for the “Plan for Dramatic Improvement” at Montbello and Noel). So Another
View #89 focused only on the results there, and at Gilpin, Greenlee, Lake,
and North—the original six—if you
will. After two years of turnaround work, perhaps a few rays of hope at Lake
and North—of those six schools—based on 2012 results.
Most of the
Oct. 16 meeting reviewed the efforts in Denver.
I sense a much less defensive tone from DPS officials this year as the
results came in, no doubt aided by a good first-year for the new schools in the
Far Northeast, where several showed academic growth in the 60, 70, and even 80th
percentiles—exactly what DPS leaders said they want to see. And even there a more sober analysis. Allen
Wilson, executive director of the Denver Summit Schools Network (DSSN), was quick
to address the “dilemma” in order to “sustain this growth”: “As you pull away
from the status quo,” he said, you need to avoid the “rubber band effect,”
where everything is “pulled back to the way it was.”
“We have not turned
around schools… turnaround is something that is longer term”
The
Donnell-Kay Foundation’s executive summary of the event noted:
Smith
repeatedly emphasized that while there are signs of progress in the Far
Northeast, “We’re not up here to toot our horn and say we have this stuff
figured out, because we don’t. Oftentimes, the second year is the year where
you start to lose a little bit of traction. We are definitely trying and hoping
not to do that.”
Near
the forum’s conclusion, Wilson said that in talking about the turnaround work
of DPS with his colleagues, he is forced to concede, “We have not turned around
schools in the Far Northeast or in general; we have put the conditions in place
to get kids through year one, and we are very pleased with that. But turnaround
is something that is longer term.”
“I
just want to make sure that we hold ourselves to those types of standards,
because these schools across the district, across the country… have had
momentary periods of success, and then they fall back,” Wilson said. “So, I
just want to make sure that we hold those high standards, and keep the pressure
on.”
It is
not the tone I see in three other districts.
And so I write again, “to keep the pressure on.”
Here’s a
swing around the state, a critical look at how school leaders in Center, Pueblo
City Schools, and Sheridan have been talking about their turnaround efforts.
Why? Do I mean to “pile on” these poor schools? No. My
purpose is to fault the leaders in these school communities and in the
state—not the schools themselves—whose words or actions, in my view, fall short
of what we need. Of course our
low-performing schools need all the support they can get. But they do not need blind support. They do not need leaders unwilling to be
accountable for mistakes. And they do
not benefit from low expectations.
1. Center Consolidated School District– Haskin
Elementary – 3 years - $1.66 million
Too Quick to Celebrate - Mission
Accomplished? – pages 3-6
2. Pueblo City 60– originally 6 schools–3 years
$12.41 million (at present, only one school being funded for year three) Too Eager to Point Fingers - Don’t blame
me! – pages 6-8
3. Sheridan – Fort Logan Elementary (grades 3-5)
– 3 years $2.38 million
Too Happy to Make Much Ado About All Too
Little - Pages 8-12
Conclusion – pages 12-13
1. Too
Quick to Celebrate - Mission Accomplished?
Haskin Elementary in the San Luis Valley
Last
winter, Jennifer Brown wrote a three-part series in The Denver Post on the School Improvement Grant (SIG) to
Colorado. It showed that, after year one
of the SIG funds supporting improvement in 16 Colorado schools, only Haskin
Elementary in the Center school district had raised its academic performance
over 5% (based on the state’s performance framework score). Superintendent George Welsh took issue with
what he thought The Post was
“insinuating.”
The Post’s article included this statement:
“About
35 percent of the federal turnaround funds sent to failing schools in Colorado
have gone to consultants and other private contractors. Academic progress among the schools that received
money last year—in the grant’s first round – has been elusive…. Performance
indicator scores went up in six out of 16 schools from 2010 to 2011.”
(“Cost doesn’t spell success,” Feb. 19, 2012,” http://www.denverpost.com/investigations/ci_19997418 )
As Haskin was the lone bright light, and showed real progress in raising
grade 3 reading scores—from 28 percent proficiency
to 41 percent, one can understand the superintendent’s desire to push
back. (By August, however, when all of
the 2012 results were in, perhaps he realized that he was too quick to draw
conclusions about the impact of all that extra money from Washington.)
Thou dost protest too much
At the district web site where he writes an
exemplary weekly update on district efforts, Keeping the Focus, Welsh responded this way on Feb. 26, 2012:
Great Things Going On Now
I just wanted to start by making everyone aware of an article that
was in the Denver Post last weekend
about the results of Colorado's Turnaround Improvement Grant efforts after 1
year.
The story insinuates that investing Turnaround Grant dollars in a partner company, like we are doing in Center with Lindamood-Bell and Focal Point, is a waste of money.
I have attached a chart that was included in the article that shows results of Colorado school and district Turnaround Grant efforts after 1 year of CSAP results (Spring 2011). I would like to note that our very own Haskin Elementary School here in Center had the greatest increase in its performance framework score of all the Turnaround schools in the state of Colorado after 1 year of improvement efforts….
Nobody from the Denver Post called us to ask if we think our money has been wasted on our partners.
Upon reading this article Marcia Neal, our State Board of Education representative, noticed our positive results and called me to ask about how we got such significant growth. I told her the difference in Center has been our willingness to take what we have been taught by our partners and to do the hard work that is necessary to make it successful. Our wonderful first year progress is the direct result of teachers working hard and taking to heart our new curriculum and instructional practices. Our first year progress is also the result of our building administrators working hard, changing the way they do their jobs, and focusing on offering feedback and support to teachers to help them do their job better. In addition, our year 1 progress is the result of our classified staff working hard, applying the new skills they have learned, and filling the voids left by teachers and principals whose roles have shifted tremendously.
I also believe our wonderful first year progress is the result of a Board of Education that has helped us to choose a good direction and stay on course to do all this hard work we are engaging in.
This Denver Post story attempts to prove that dollars don't make the difference when it comes to school improvement. Had we never received the Turnaround Grant we have been blessed with we would likely never have learned the new skills we have gleaned from our partners. These dollars are making all the difference in the world to our kids in Center!
After discussing this matter with Center School Board President Michael Lobato he said, “The point we need to get out is that EFFECTIVELY putting more resources to use WILL improve student achievement". http://keepingourfocus.weebly.com/feb-26-2012.html
The story insinuates that investing Turnaround Grant dollars in a partner company, like we are doing in Center with Lindamood-Bell and Focal Point, is a waste of money.
I have attached a chart that was included in the article that shows results of Colorado school and district Turnaround Grant efforts after 1 year of CSAP results (Spring 2011). I would like to note that our very own Haskin Elementary School here in Center had the greatest increase in its performance framework score of all the Turnaround schools in the state of Colorado after 1 year of improvement efforts….
Nobody from the Denver Post called us to ask if we think our money has been wasted on our partners.
Upon reading this article Marcia Neal, our State Board of Education representative, noticed our positive results and called me to ask about how we got such significant growth. I told her the difference in Center has been our willingness to take what we have been taught by our partners and to do the hard work that is necessary to make it successful. Our wonderful first year progress is the direct result of teachers working hard and taking to heart our new curriculum and instructional practices. Our first year progress is also the result of our building administrators working hard, changing the way they do their jobs, and focusing on offering feedback and support to teachers to help them do their job better. In addition, our year 1 progress is the result of our classified staff working hard, applying the new skills they have learned, and filling the voids left by teachers and principals whose roles have shifted tremendously.
I also believe our wonderful first year progress is the result of a Board of Education that has helped us to choose a good direction and stay on course to do all this hard work we are engaging in.
This Denver Post story attempts to prove that dollars don't make the difference when it comes to school improvement. Had we never received the Turnaround Grant we have been blessed with we would likely never have learned the new skills we have gleaned from our partners. These dollars are making all the difference in the world to our kids in Center!
After discussing this matter with Center School Board President Michael Lobato he said, “The point we need to get out is that EFFECTIVELY putting more resources to use WILL improve student achievement". http://keepingourfocus.weebly.com/feb-26-2012.html
I doubt
that most readers would say that Brown’s series set out “to prove”
anything. Never mind. Educators imagine the press can’t see the
good they are doing, and they long to pat their folks on the back whenever
possible. Granted.
When reading scores for 3rd
graders were released in May 2012 and showed a rise at Haskin Elementary from 45% proficient in 2011 to 76%
proficient in 2012, Welsh remained enthusiastic. In Education
News Colorado, “TCAP reading
results reveal trends,” Nancy Mitchell
wrote :
Center
Superintendent George Welsh, a key player in the recent Lobato school funding
lawsuit, said the results show more money spent well can make a difference.
“I
think the results we are achieving are a real life indication that a
significant infusion of dollars, spent wisely in targeted areas, can produce
the kinds of results the state has striven for through the education system it
has designed,” he said.
“Without
the training and resource opportunities that were afforded to us through our
turnaround grant, we would probably still be where we were in 2010 when only 28
percent of our third-graders could read at grade level.”
Part
of Center’s federal funding went to Lindamood-Bell, a for-profit company
focused on intensive literacy training, including implementing summer and
after-school academies for struggling readers. The company moved a trainer into
Center for 18 months. (May 9, 2012)
Lindamood
Bell was also eager to celebrate. It produced this press release:
“Turnaround School in Colorado
Outperforms the State with Lindamood Bell”
Center, CO, July 24, 2012- As
a result of its School Turnaround efforts, Haskin Elementary School’s 3rd
Graders have outperformed the state average on the 2012 TCAP in reading. In
2011, 41 percent of Haskin’s 3rd graders scored as proficient or advanced. This
year, 76 percent of 3rd graders scored at proficient or advanced, whereas, the
state average was 74 percent.
Despite the many challenges facing its population, Haskin Elementary School has demonstrated that with an effective Turnaround plan, low-performing schools can significantly increase student achievement. … In two years, Haskin’s 3rd graders have made a 48-point improvement, the largest of any school involved in the School Improvement program in the state.
http://www.lindamoodbell.com/press-releases/colorado-turnaround-school-outperforms-state.aspx,
7/24/2012
After two
years? Not so wonderful
Nice work. But only one grade. As the recent A Plus Turnaround report showed, such pronouncements may have jumped the
gun. With all the 2012 TCAP data in,
that report concluded:
While Center has shown some improvement from the
dismal growth scores in the 20-and 30- percent range, the school still has much
work to do with only three instances of 12 where the school beat the
state observed growth rate of 50 percent after two years of turnaround.
Overall growth scores at Haskin were about average
in reading and writing, and below average in math. (Better 3rd grade scores do not
count toward growth, as 3rd grade is the first year students take the state
tests.)
|
CENTER 26 JT
|
HASKIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
|
READING
|
Elementary
|
52.5
|
54.0
|
37.0%
|
71.4%
|
|
CENTER 26 JT
|
HASKIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
|
MATH
|
Elementary
|
39.0
|
66.0
|
24.5%
|
26.5%
|
|
CENTER 26 JT
|
HASKIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
|
WRITING
|
Elementary
|
49.0
|
68.0
|
25.0%
|
47.4%
|
It is true that 3rd and 4th grade reading
and math scores went up in both 2011 and 2012.
But writing scores remained well below the state average. Fifth grade scores fell below levels they had
been the previous two years—in all
four disciplines tested (see below). Yes, 2011 showed progress for grade 5, but
2012 did not.
Haskin
Elementary – 5th grade – % proficient and advanced
|
GRADE 5
|
2012
|
2011
|
2010
|
|
Reading
|
36
|
44
|
37
|
|
Writing
|
23
|
33
|
27
|
|
Math
|
26
|
44
|
31
|
|
Science
|
18
|
30
|
27
|
We see a low-performing school that may be headed in
the right direction, but it’s too soon to tell.
Leaders must be careful not to overstate its progress. There is much work yet to do before one can
say Haskin Elementary students are performing at a satisfactory level. Only then
will the school have “turned around.”
2. Too
Eager to Point Fingers - Don’t blame me!
Pueblo City 60 and Global Partnership
Schools
The
story in Pueblo has never been about celebrating, but it has been about adults pointing
the finger at each other – and whining.
A troubled school district unable to decide how to use the funds wisely;
making a bad choice in its outside team —the Global Partnership Schools*; willing
to divide up most of the $14 million coming from the SIG funds with these
consultants; and then competing with GPS for nasty good-byes when the two divorced
this past summer—before year three of the grant had yet to begin. Not pretty.
In Another View #81, “$37 million to Colorado
Turnaround Schools – How’s That Going?” (August 2011) I gave the 2011 CSAP
results at the Pueblo schools receiving SIG funds. It showed that more scores had declined from
2010 than had gone up in reading, writing, math, and science. The Denver Post series last winter, “Cost
doesn’t spell success” quoted several folks studying turnarounds here and
across the country who were shaking their collective heads at how the SIG funds
were being (mis)spent. A powerful
comment from Reilly Pharo of the Colorado Children’s Campaign ran across the
top of pages 16 and 17 in The Post:
With the
infusion of dollars into these schools and the additional vendors,
we should
not see test scores and outcomes and student growth declining.
In part
two, “Pueblo schools wait for grants to pay off,” Brown zeroed in on the
efforts in that city. Her opening was
strong enough to make certain consultants spill their morning coffee.
Six
Pueblo city schools on the nation’s chronically failing list have received more
than $8 million in the past two years to pull themselves from the vortex of
sinking academic achievement.
After
the first year of a three-year contract with (Global Partnership Schools), one
school’s abysmal state performance score did not budge.
The other five got worse. (Feb.
20, 2012). (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20002284?source=pkg)
*Here too there seems
enough blame to spread among several parties. The district’s view, apparently,
is that it had little time to look for and agree to an external
partners—(although some Colorado schools receiving SIG funds had only modest
support from outside groups). See “District: State pushed vendor on us. Pueblo City Schools did not
choose the consulting company.” (http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/district-state-pushed-vendor-on-us/article_2752cc10-a22e-11e1-aff7-0019bb2963f4.html)
Clear
warnings, don’t you think? The Pueblo Chieftain went further. In
May it produced an extended investigative series titled “Haste or Waste?” on
the district’s collaboration with GPS to turn around six schools. The paper editorialized for an end to the
agreement. But even late in year two,
the district leadership still seemed to be in denial.
CSAP scores were better than a Denver
newspaper reported
By GAYLE PEREZ |
(May 21, 2012)
Pueblo City Schools (D60) and
Global Partnership Schools officials said they weren't surprised that test
scores didn't dramatically increase the first year the federal School
Improvement Grant program was in place.
"I don't know what we
expected, but we weren't expecting miracles that first year," said school
board member Stephanie Garcia. "When you go from little resources to the
kind of resources that were brought in with the SIG grant, we absolutely
expected movement. We didn't get it across the board, but we did have movement
all over the place." (The Pueblo Chieftain)
Yes,
but more movement down than up. Meanwhile the restless among us had heard
enough. We were eager to see the
Colorado Department of Education step in—to send a message to Pueblo and GPS
that it would not approve of year three funding. CDE did act, finally, in late September,
suspending the SIG funds for four of the Pueblo schools, pending further
review. But by then the quarrel in Pueblo had already led to a break up.
In
late August, just as the Pueblo City 60 school board was set to decide whether
to renew its contract with GPS effort, the consultants said good-bye. And not gracefully.
Consultant exits contract with Pueblo City Schools
Cites
noncommitment on district's part
By GAYLE PEREZ | (August 28, 2012)
The New York-based consulting
firm hired by Pueblo City Schools (D60) to help improve achievement at six
low-performing schools will end its contract with the district at the end of
September.
Manny Rivera, executive
director of Global Partnership Schools, notified Superintendent Maggie Lopez
last week in a letter that GPS would not ask to extend the contract with the
district for the third and final year, citing a lack of commitment by all
involved in the program.
D60's current contract
with GPS expires Sept. 30….
In a letter to Lopez
dated Aug. 23, Rivera said turning
around failing schools takes at least three to five years. (bold mine)
But in the two years
that GPS has been working with the district, Rivera outlined many of the
improvements in teaching practices and student achievement that have occurred
at the six schools as part of the federally funded School Improvement Grant
program.
However, Rivera said
there is still more work to be done and without the support of everyone
involved, GPS would not seek the contract renewal.
"We also know that
achieving sustainable and significant change in performance requires that all
stakeholders be completely aligned with, and committed to, the transformational
strategies," Rivera said. "Regrettably, I have become convinced over
the past six months that not everyone at the school district remains committed
to the agenda that we set two years ago." (The Pueblo Chieftain)
Three to
five years? Probably true. Perhaps relevant to all these turnaround
stories. And yet… $8 million spent over
two years, and achievement scores in four middle schools are largely flat or
falling? Does Rivera or GPS take any
responsibility for that?
The Pueblo Chieftain was only too happy to hear of
Rivera’s decision, and took some pride in the role it played in the split. Its editorial on August 31closed this way:
And before the District 60 Board of
Education could decide whether to spend even more money on GPS this new school
year, the company apparently read the tea leaves and decided to withdraw
unilaterally.
All we can say is, good riddance.
Editor
Steve Henson concluded with this don’t-let-the-door-hit-you-on-your-way-out
commentary.
Chieftain
series helps end waste of tax dollars
By STEVE HENSON | (Sept, 2, 2012)
Congratulations
to Chieftain reporter Gayle Perez and editor Pete Strescino, who spent months earlier this year to produce a fantastic five-day series on
Global Partnership Schools.
GPS is the private company that
received millions in federal dollars to work in Pueblo to help fix our most
troubled schools. Simply put, as our series of articles showed, GPS' program
didn't work here.
GPS bailed on Pueblo
this past week, passing on a third year in a three-year contract, and had the
nerve to blame its ineffectiveness on Pueblo educators.
Perez
wrote: “Pueblo City Schools (D60)
board members said they were elated to hear that Global Partnership Schools is
going to end its two-year relationship with the district” (Aug. 31, 2012).
Adults seemingly glad to point fingers—but roughly
$8 million spent with little apparent benefit for the more than 1,800 students
in these four troubled middle schools. What
a shame.
3. Too
Happy to Make Much Ado About All Too Little -
Marching Up the Field in Sheridan
So at
Haskin—some progress year one, a step back year two; at Pueblo—two steps
back. In contrast, Sheridan’s Fort Logan
Elementary School for grades 3-5 showed little change year one, but saw
improvement year two. While it is fair
to commend better results in 2012, my concern in this case is whether the
celebration is justified—and to ask if it sends the right message.
It is how
Sheridan presented its “good results” that I find so troubling.
Sheridan’s
Fort Logan Elementary—enrolling about 300 students—was one of the 16 schools to
receive a three-year federal School Improvement Grant in 2010, a total of $2.38
million through 2012-13. Fort Logan had
been one of the state’s lowest-performing elementary schools for a several
years. Fifth grade scores showed some
progress from 2008 to 2010 (the percentage of students proficient and advanced rose
in reading from 35% to 48%; in writing 15% to 27%; and in math, 28% to 34%). Not good, but at least better. Still, reading and writing scores for grades
3 and 4 remained woefully low.
After
year one funds were spent (roughly $730,000) and we saw the CSAP 2011 results, little
change was evident. Observed growth was
below the state average of 50% in reading (38%), writing (31%), and math (47%).
The Colorado Department of Education’s
Performance Frameworks still listed Fort Logan on turnaround status, and determined
that on Achievement, Growth, and Growth Gaps the school “Did Not Meet”
expectations.
2012
results were better. But how much
better? The Colorado Department of
Education apparently found them good enough to take the school off its “turnaround”
status. Not only that. The district’s web site announced that “the
growth rates are dramatic enough that the school will skip past the
second-lowest ‘priority improvement’ status to the ‘improvement’ category,
which is one step below the state’s highest rating for schools, ‘performance.’”
(I hope this is a mistake. We’ll see
when the SPF data for 2012 is made public soon.)
To
celebrate, as Superintendent Mike Clough wrote recently in “What comes after
turnaround?” (http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2012/10/15/49883-voices-what-comes-after-turnaround),
the district “pulled out all the stops” for a big show Sept. 14. Clough welcomed Colorado Commissioner of Education Robert Hammond, the U.S. Assistant
Secretary of Education Deb Delisle, Colorado Education Association Director of
Teaching and Learning Linda Barker, and Sheridan school board members to join
in the festivities. The next day The
Denver Post gave the event a nice big headline (Sept. 15, 2012):
Pep rally fetes
gains at elementary school
Sheridan
ditches ‘turnaround” rating with academic growth
For images of the
rally, go to “Dramatic Improvement at Sheridan Elementary Lifts School Off ‘Turnaround’
Status,” at the district’s web site (http://ssd2.org/). There you can see boys
and girls proudly wearing “Here We Grow!!!” shirts and high school cheerleaders
holding signs, “Here,” “We” “Grow!!!”
See the cute-as-a-button K-2 students from Alice Terry Elementary cheering
in the stands. See the Superintendent
and the Commissioner speaking. See the
student holding up a poster with the happy news, “55,” in big letters.
And please read on to
ask if such a celebration, on a beautiful fall day under a clear blue Colorado
sky, was more public relations than the hard truth.
An excerpt from The Post’s story, by Karen Augé:
There
were cheerleaders forming pyramids on the football field. There was an
undoubtedly well-roasted mascot in a thick, black fur ram suit. And there was
cheering and shouting from nearly filled bleachers.
But
this particular Friday afternoon pep rally at Sheridan Middle School wasn't
about touchdowns but goals scored in classrooms.
Sheridan
Elementary School had scored enough academic points, in fact, that it was no
longer on the bottom rung of Colorado's schools.
"Sheridan
Elementary is no longer a 'turnaround' school," a triumphant
Superintendent Michael Clough announced to cheering students, teachers and
parents.
Sheridan
Elementary — which consists of two campuses, Alice Terry and Fort Logan
elementaries — sits in a mostly forgotten pocket southwest of Denver that is
home to Fort Logan National Cemetery and the state mental hospital of the same
name.
Sheridan
fifth-graders, in white T-shirts bearing the legend "Here We Grow,"
acted as a massive human PowerPoint presentation, moving up the field from
where math, reading and writing scores were in 2010 to where they were in 2012.
In 2010, Sheridan Elementary students
were in the 42nd growth percentile for reading, 37th for writing and 27th for
math. Last year, students had moved up to the 55th, 50th and 48th percentiles,
respectively, in those subjects.
|
Growth – or Achievement (part 2)
In Another View three years ago I asked: “Will growth data
understate the problems of underperforming schools? If growth will be a factor
in the accreditation process, and, where warranted, in exploring various
turnaround strategies, we must hope that we do not misinterpret mediocre
improvement…. It would be troublesome if growth scores caused the state or
local districts to accept 56% growth in a school where the prospects for
students reaching proficiency by 10th grade are so bleak…. If we
overstate (the value of the Growth Model), and its cheerier message, we can
grow complacent—about the last thing we need right now.”
“A look at the Colorado Growth Model – Let’s
interpret with care, lest we misread its ‘good news’”–AV#61, Nov. 19, 2009
|
Here is where we must be
more careful about growth versus achievement.
(See box) If students march up
the field from their 42 yard line and crossed midfield to reach the 45 on “the
other team’s side” to indicate how much their GROWTH in reading has improved --
well, OK. But this does not indicate
where, as The Denver Post mistakenly put
it, “math, reading and writing scores
were in 2010” versus 2012 (bold mine).
Achievement scores are
set against standards. Growth “scores”—are
they scores?—might only tell us this year was better than last year.
I am sure the
Commissioner knew the difference. I wonder
if he was embarrassed.
If
reading improvement is the one area Sheridan wishes to emphasize, the A Plus report
on “Colorado Turnaround Schools” revealed Fort Logan has actually taken a step back in reading since 2009. And
in math.
Fort Logan
Elementary
|
Reading
|
Math
|
|||
|
Year
|
Observed growth/Adequate growth
|
% Proficient/Advanced
|
Observed growth/Adequate growth
|
% Proficient/Advanced
|
|
2012
|
55/53
|
46.28
|
48/66
|
45.42
|
|
2011
|
38/56
|
39
|
47/56
|
53
|
|
2010
|
42/42
|
44
|
26/58
|
48
|
|
2009
|
31/45
|
48
|
30/57
|
55
|
Let’s
stay on our football field, but rather than growth, let’s look at reading achievement (% proficient and advanced,
above). We begin first down (in 2009) on
our 48.
We lose 4 yards and start second down (in 2010) on the 44. We lose
another 5, and we’re now (in 2011) back on the 39. We have a “good” third down and get back to
the 46. Are the fans cheering? It is fourth and
12. Don’t we still have to punt?
Not convinced? OK, let me be specific. What you see here, below, are the achievement
scores going back to 2009 to provide a more complete picture of performance
over the last several years. And when
you compare 2009 to 2012, keep in mind how Sheridan presented itself in its April
2010 Tiered Intervention Grant request to the Colorado Department of Education. There it stated:
“Over recent years, Fort
Logan Elementary has come to embody the need for drastic improvements in
student achievement.” (http://www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/dl/ti_sitig_SheridanFt%20Logan.pdf)
It then listed the 2009 reading
and math scores at Fort Logan and showed the large gaps between the school’s performance
and the state average. So I ask: If the school’s 2012 scores are much the
same as they were in 2009, isn’t it JUST as much in need of “drastic
improvement” today? Or—OK, I’ll say
it—do we now expect less?
Fort Logan
- Percent proficient and advanced
|
Reading
|
2012
|
2011
|
2010
|
2009
|
Change from 2010 to 2012
|
Change from 2009-2012
|
|
Grade 3
|
52
|
48
|
45
|
64
|
+7
|
-12
|
|
Grade 4
|
47
|
33
|
39
|
36
|
+8
|
+11
|
|
Grade 5
|
41
|
37
|
48
|
41
|
-7
|
same
|
Since
2009 and 2010, 3 categories up, 2 categories down, one the same.
In reading we see real improvement for 4th grade, especially
in 2012 over 2011. But the 3rd
grade reading score in 2012 is lower than it was in 2009; the 5th
grade score is lower than it was in 2010 and no better than it was in 2009.
|
Writing
|
2012
|
2011
|
2010
|
2009
|
Change from 2010 to 2012
|
Change from 2009-2012
|
|
Grade 3
|
27
|
33
|
32
|
33
|
-5
|
-6
|
|
Grade 4
|
26
|
22
|
20
|
22
|
+6
|
+4
|
|
Grade 5
|
36
|
23
|
27
|
27
|
+8
|
+8
|
Since 2009 and 2010, 4 categories up, 2 down.
In writing, a decline for 3rd grade.
Some improvement in 4th
grade. But three-quarters of this class (74%)
is still not writing at grade level.
Improvement in 5th
grade. Strong jump from 2011 – 13% more
at grade level than the year before. But
two-thirds of this class (64%) is not writing at grade level.
|
Math
|
2012
|
2011
|
2010
|
2009
|
Change from 2010 to 2012
|
Change from 2009-2012
|
|
Grade 3
|
45
|
56
|
54
|
70
|
-9
|
-25
|
|
Grade 4
|
52
|
52
|
52
|
56
|
same
|
-4
|
|
Grade 5
|
41
|
52
|
34
|
36
|
+5
|
+5
|
Since
2009 and 2010, 2 categories up, 3 categories down, one the same.
In math, scores decline as the class moves up a grade. Third graders
in 2009 did well—70% proficient and advanced (follow that class over three
years in red), but only 52% of that class was
proficient and advanced in 4th grade in 2010 and again in 5th
grade in 2011.
Third graders in 2010 were
54% proficient and advanced (follow that class in blue),
but in 4th grade the next year 52% of that class was proficient, and
in 2012 the percentage kept falling to 41%.
In math in 2012, third
graders scored much lower than previous 3rd grade classes. If the
recent downward trends continue in 4th and 5th grades, fewer
than 45% will be proficient by the time they enter middle school.
|
Science
|
2012
|
2011
|
2010
|
2009
|
Change from 2009-2012
|
|
Grade 5
|
15
|
10
|
16
|
15
|
same
|
**
Most
kids enjoy pep rallies. They can be
great for school spirit. I can imagine
ways to take the positives from the 2012 results and provide encouragement to
the kids as the school year began.
But I
believe what follows would be a more honest if impossibly chaotic march up and
down that football field, if Fort Logan students were to accurately reflect
achievement scores over three years:
Reading: Put last year’s 5th
graders on their own 45-yard line to show that, on average, out of 100
students, 45% were proficient or advanced in 3rd grade. Make them step backwards 12 yards to show that, in 4th grade, only 33%
were proficient. Have them move ahead 10
yards and stand at the 43—two yards behind
where they stood a few minutes ago, to reflect that only 43% were proficient
readers as they began middle school.
Cruel,
yes?
Math: Or put last year’s 5th
grades on “the other team’s” 46-yard line—at that point they had crossed mid-field!—to show that 54%
were proficient in 3rd grade, step back two yards to show that 52% were proficient in 4th
grade, and then then march farther back
– an 11-yard penalty— to their own 41 to show how their math scores had
declined from the previous year.
Of
course no one would do this.
But we want
students to know how they are doing, true? Fort Logan students should know that
55% growth in reading last year is just above average and is nice but not
nearly enough to enable most to catch up and become proficient by the time they
leave middle school. They should know that
50% growth in writing is well short of what the state considers adequate growth
for them (63%), and that 48% growth in math is well below what the state sees as adequate growth (66%) to achieve
proficiency. (See the report quoted at
the Denver policy forum, “Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing,” by the
Institute of Education Sciences, which calls such efforts successful when the
school can sustain median growth percentiles of at least 65%.)
Tough
love, you might call it. But more
straightforward than bringing in national and state leaders to celebrate what
seems just the bare minimum of what a school should be doing, to say nothing of what a school aided by nearly $1,450,000
the past two years might do to demonstrate “dramatic improvement.”
Conclusion
Colorado
education has a right to be proud of its attention to growth, but we must not
let it trump our focus on achievement.
Expanding our measurement of student outcomes by including growth has
been critical to developing a more just and comprehensive presentation of the
work of our schools. It is crucial as we
look closely at schools with a high percentage of low-income students, and as
we measure teacher effectiveness.
But to
tell our kids, “Way to go! We see growth!” when it is just average—when these
students have so far to go to be proficient as readers and writers, to be at
grade level in math and in science—strikes me as too kind. If not slightly dishonest. We do a disservice to celebrate growth if we
are not equally truthful about achievement.
You
might say: “That’s downer. These are kids and schools and teachers who need a
lift. You can crush them with too much
honesty.”
I
wonder. When Senator Mike Johnston headed
the Mapleton Expeditionary
School of the Arts, he created a Climb to College map for his forty-four 11th
graders in September 2006. Each student’s
name was on a separate notecard:
The cards
were pasted at the bottom left corner of the map, which was called “base camp.”
Moving up the map and “east,” to the right, were myriad stopping off points,
beginning with the places they could advance to in the eleventh grade, such as
preparing for college entrance tests, taking a sample test, making a list of
possible colleges or getting admission materials. At the top right was College
Admission, where Johnston intended to be hanging all forty-four index cards
within eighteen to twenty months, in 2008. (Class
Warfare – Inside the Fight to Fix America’s Schools, by Steven Brill)
So yes,
put our kids on a field. Or on a map.
Help them see progress, and the “climb” ahead. But be honest.
When I
go to College Track Monday afternoons to tutor a few Rangeview High School
students, there on the wall is the Grade Point Average for every student. “Disguised” by only presenting the student’s
code, not his or her name, next to the GPA, but still—the grades are there,
from 4.5 to 1.5. As tutors we are
encouraged to keep track of the grades of “our” three or four kids each
session. Grades are not a big
secret. Kids talk about them
openly. And yes, when their grades go
up, there is a shout-out to those students making progress.
I wonder if we as adults
are more conditioned by the self-esteem movement than the kids—who might be
more capable of handling the truth about achievement than we are. Who might
wonder a few years from now if back in Sheridan in the fall of 2012 they were
part of a puppet show orchestrated by adults, one that rings false.
**
So let’s be careful. At the district and school level, let’s not understate
the challenge and claim “mission accomplished” based on thin evidence. Let’s
own up to failure; let’s be accountable where we have not done these turnarounds well.
And let’s not pretend that slight progress is a triumph. At the state level, let’s hope the Colorado
Department of Education maintains strong standards for school accountability
and performance. Stronger, if I read the
Fort Logan story accurately, than we have in place today.
**
The
Denver Art Museum will soon exhibit work by Dana Schutz. One of her paintings, titled Swimming, Smoking, Crying, “depicts a
woman doing the three incompatible actions at once” (“On & Off the Wall,”
Nov/Dec 2012, Denver Art Museum). Three
verbs that can cancel each other out, the artist says.
You
might say it is equally incompatible, or contradictory, to try to transform our
high poverty, low-achieving schools by sending messages of encouragement—and disappointment,
to offer support—and tough judgments.
The
former teacher in me would reply: Is it so different from what we try for with
our classes? To have clear expectations,
to be positive, and to be honest with our students about how they are doing. I did not work for principals who expected me
to cheer for mediocrity. Neither should
Colorado ask us to cheer for so little.
No comments:
Post a Comment