.
January 1, 2013
Regional economic
development works. Why not a regional recovery school district?
How’s this for a New Year’s Resolution?
In 2013 Coloradans will make a determined effort to begin to turn
around our lowest-performing high schools.
|
School districts in the metro
Denver area struggle with the same issue: what to do about their
lowest-performing high schools. They
might take a lesson from the Metro Denver Economic Development Corpor- ation
(Metro Denver EDC) and its CEO, Tom Clark.
Steve Raabe’s profile of Clark, named the Denver Post
Business Person of the Year, stated that he “has been a key player in virtually
every major business relocation and expansion along the Front Range” since 1985
(The Denver Post, Dec 23, 2012).
Before the Greater Denver Corp was created in the 1980s,
Clark said “the economic development model was fight like hell, and stab the
other guy in the back.” Today, according to Metro Denver EDC’s web site: “…
we've found that, in business development as in business itself, collaboration
and teamwork pays off.” It claims to be “the nation’s first and only truly
regional economic development entity in which many area economic development
groups have joined together to represent, and further, the interests of an
entire region.”
In public education—inside Clark’s “territory,” the seven
counties in the Metro Denver area—we find at least 15 of the state’s
lowest-performing high schools (see pages 3 and 4). Anyone concerned about these schools must
wonder if we could use someone like Clark, and such a collaborative effort
among all partners, to tackle a problem shared by so many urban school
districts.
Regional cooperation for the benefit of all. A no-brainer, wouldn’t you agree?
Our local schools districts do not “fight like hell” with
each other, although competition for grants like Race to the Top might ruffle a
few feathers. But I believe many
districts will confess: partnerships and sharing are unusual. Each its own silo,
its own fiefdom. We applaud when local
mayors work together, but we seldom see neighboring superintendents do the
same. Unfortunate, to say the least, especially
when they share common problems—like high-poverty high schools with low
graduation rates (for several schools below 60%--see page 4) and a majority of
those who do graduate not ready for
college (often over 70% of the school’s graduates require remedial courses
before taking college level classes).
The pages that follow present two different snapshots of more
than a dozen low-performing high schools in the seven counties of the Metro
Denver EDC. Most face similar
challenges. There is little evidence over
the past twenty years that our school districts have found ways to turn around
these schools. In the early 1990’s I worked
for a foundation supporting restructuring at 10 Colorado high schools. I had much to learn about how difficult it can
be to fundamentally change a high school.
Twenty years later, watching reform after restructuring after redesign, I
am skeptical of anyone who “has the solution,” and I would guess that by now many
metro-area school districts are equally cynical. Humbled by their experiences, frustrated by
the lack of improvement in so many high schools, many urban districts can
acknowledge: “We do not have the
answer—and/or maybe the personnel or resources to address this problem.” Which only makes giving up some control, and
putting as many heads together as possible —creating a regional
effort—appealing. A new “district” focused solely on dramatic improvement for
these high school students.
Conference on reforming high schools
Please look for the announcement from A
Plus Denver about a gathering this winter “for school heads, district
leaders, CMOs and national thought leaders to talk about how we can make and
sustain real changes in the classroom” in our high schools. An event
consistent with a regional recovery district; a chance to work together, to
pool our resources, to meet this challenge.
|
We borrow this idea from other states that have developed
such “recovery districts.” It is one of
the options discussed by a School Turnaround Study Group (STSG) I have joined.
(As is always the case, the opinions expressed
in Another View are my own and are
not intended to represent the views of the STSG or any organization I am
associated with).
These “recovery districts” focus
on turning around schools judged to be in the “persistently lowest achieving”
status. Louisiana’s Recovery School
District (LA RSD) has the best story to tell.
Most new efforts wisely limit the number of schools in which to
intervene: Michigan’s Education Achievement System (EAS) works with 13 Detroit
schools; Indiana’s state superintendent brought in external operators for seven
schools; the Tennessee Achievement School District is tackling five Memphis
schools.
Would a “recovery school district” for, say, 10 high
schools in the Denver metro area, a regional collaborative effort with one purpose,
make sense? I believe it is an option we
should explore.
SB 163 – The clock is ticking towards some
kind of dramatic intervention. Why wait?
State law adds urgency to such a look: SB 163, the 2009
Educational Accountability Act, means many schools now face a deadline. CDE’s 2012 School Performance Framework puts over
30 Colorado high schools programs in the two lowest accreditation categories,
Priority Improvement or Turnaround. In
the metro area, Adams City High, Aurora Central High, and Westminster High have
been so ranked for three straight years.
Several other local schools have been placed in these categories two out of the last three years. According to EdNews Colorado (“School ratings
inch up a bit,” Todd Engdahl, Dec. 5, 2012):
Schools that remain at the
priority improvement or turnaround levels for five consecutive years are
subject to closure, conversion or other significant change. Here are the
numbers of schools that are on the five-year clock, starting July 1, 2013:
70 schools are in year one
61 schools are in year two
60 schools are in year three
Noting that the five-year clock
is ticking, board chair Bob Schaffer, R-4th District, asked, “Do we have some
method of trying to play this out?” He was referring to schools that may not be
able to improve their ratings enough to avoid conversion, closure or other
changes.
While SB 163 does not require
dramatic intervention by the state before the fifth year of chronic low performance,
it does allow the state to act
sooner. Which seems only right. Imagine 8th graders at Aurora’s North
Middle School in 2009-2010. They learn that the high school they will enter is
on Priority Improvement that year; they might then spend their entire high
school years at Aurora Central—through 2014--as it stays on Priority
Improvement, or worse, with no action, no consequences for the lack of
progress. Our conscience protests; those
students deserve better. As soon as
possible.
But just because SB 163 allows for significant
intervention, will the state have the courage, or the capacity, to act
boldly?
A recent draft of a report on turnarounds from the School
of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado at Denver (the final draft will
be presented this winter to the Colorado State Board of Education), asks a key
question:
How should low-performing schools and districts be prioritized for
assistance and interventions? S.B.
163 mandates certain dramatic interventions for schools and districts with
Turnaround plans and for districts facing loss of accreditation. Currently, 40 schools and four districts have
been assigned Turnaround plans. How will
the system manage its “caseload?”
Good question. One more reason why “the system” might do
well to consider a Recovery District for 5-10 high schools in the metro
area.
What schools would be good candidates for such an effort?
Another
View #88 focused on Aurora
Central High (“The case for state intervention,” Sept. 18, 2012), but also mentioned Adams City and Sheridan.
Here are 15 high schools. If 5-10 of these face so many similar challenges,
what if …?
1. CDE’s School Performance Framework –
High schools in metro Denver on Priority
Improvement or Turnaround Plans
The first presentation is from the Colorado Department of
Education’s School Performance Framework for 2012, listing local high schools
whose score (points earned) placed them in an accreditation category of Priority Improvement (second lowest
category) or Turnaround (lowest
category).
My list does not include on-line schools, K-12 schools,
or alternative education campuses. Each
school here has a high percentage of students on free and reduced lunch (from
69.4% at Mapleton Expeditionary School of the Arts to 97.6% at Bruce
Randolph). Only Southwest Early College
is small (295 students enrolled). The others have at least 500 students; Aurora
Central (2,291) and Westminster High (2,366) are the two largest schools in
this group.
District
|
School
|
Final Accreditation Category
|
Final
% Points Earned
|
Entering
Year on Priority Improvement or Turnaround
|
||
2010
|
2011
|
2012
|
2012
|
|||
Adams County 14
|
Adams City High School
|
Turnaround Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
35.9
|
Year 3
|
Aurora Public Schools
|
Aurora Central H.S.
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
41.6
|
Year 2
|
Denver
Public
Schools
|
Bruce Randolph (6-12)
|
Improvement Plan
|
Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
57.9
|
Year 1
|
Montbello
H.S.*
|
Turnaround Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
Turnaround Plan
|
40.8
|
Year 3
|
|
Southwest Early College
|
Improvement Plan
|
Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
50
|
Year 1
|
|
West
H.S.*
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
Turnaround Plan
|
Turnaround Plan
|
43.1
|
Year 3
|
|
Jefferson County
|
Jefferson H.S.
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
45
|
Year 1
|
Mapleton
|
Mapleton Expeditionary Sch. of the Arts
(7-12)
|
Improvement Plan
|
Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
45.8
|
Year 1
|
Sheridan
|
Sheridan H.S.
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
45.5
|
Year 1
|
Westminster 50
|
Westminster H.S.
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
Priority Improvement Plan
|
43.2
|
Year 3
|
*NOTE: The
federal School Improvement Grant is supporting the three-year turnaround of Montbello
(nearly $3.4 million) and West (over $1.1 million), and DPS seems committed to
redesign these two schools. As a result,
these two would need less attention inside a regional recovery district. On the
other hand, the lessons being learned in Denver’s efforts might prove of great
value to such a “district.”
2. ColoradoSchoolGrades.com –
High Schools in Metro Denver scoring D or below
From 2 years ago - Another View
#76 - March 4, 2011
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.
|
While ColoradoSchoolGrades.com uses much of the same state
data as CDE in its rankings, it gives grades, not a percentage of points earned
towards accreditation. This
time—removing Montbello (ranked #315 by ColoradoSchoolGrades.com) and West (ranked
#319) as two “F” schools already undergoing significant restructuring, and not
adding Denver’s North High (which earned a “D,” ranking #293) for the same reason—the
list of low-achieving schools is slightly different. Again, all of these schools have a high
percentage of students from low-income families, and again—save for Southwest
Early College and Mapleton Expeditionary—each has over 500 high school students.
District
|
School
|
Overall grade
|
Ranking (out of 327 high schools)
|
Overall Academic Proficiency
|
Academic Proficiency in:
|
Overall Academic Growth
|
Graduation rate
|
% low income
|
|||
Reading
|
Math
|
English
|
Science
|
||||||||
Adams
County 14
|
Adams City High School
|
F
|
324
|
F
|
F
|
D-
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
63%
|
81%
|
Aurora
Public Schools
|
Aurora Central H.S.
|
F
|
318
|
F
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
C
|
43%
|
71%
|
Gateway H.S.
|
D-
|
308
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
C+
|
56%
|
57%
|
|
Hinkley H.S.
|
D
|
288
|
D+
|
D
|
C
|
D
|
C-
|
C
|
58%
|
69%
|
|
Denver
Public Schools
|
Manual H.S.
|
D
|
305
|
F
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
C
|
65%
|
92%
|
Southwest Early College
|
D
|
293
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D-
|
D-
|
C
|
42%
|
79%
|
|
Englewood
|
Englewood H.S.
|
D
|
293
|
D+
|
D
|
C-
|
D+
|
D+
|
D
|
71%
|
44%
|
Jefferson
County
|
Alameda International H.S.
|
D
|
288
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D-
|
D
|
C-
|
74%
|
76%
|
Jefferson H.S.
|
F
|
313
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
C
|
62%
|
87%
|
|
Sheridan
|
Sheridan H.S.
|
D-
|
310
|
D-
|
D-
|
D
|
D-
|
D
|
C
|
41%
|
71%
|
Westmin-ster
50
|
Westminster H.S.
|
F
|
315
|
F
|
D-
|
F
|
F
|
D-
|
C-
|
72%
|
77%
|
No comments:
Post a Comment