Senate
Bill 163 and the State Board of Education
“The state board is responsible for
overseeing the Colorado Department of Education, which works with the state’s
178 school districts to put in place education legislation. The board is also
charged with rating schools, and in the coming months it will be responsible for deciding on sanctions for the state’s
poorest-performing schools that have failed to improve.” (Oct. 18, 2016) http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2016/10/18/colorado-teachers-union-reform-groups-find-common-ground-on-shifting-political-power-on-state-board/#.WAeGhPkrLIW
**
As (too many?) folks meet (too often?)
to discuss Colorado’s response to the new federal law, the Every Student
Succeeds Act, in the (realistic?) hope we can, according to CDE, “develop
a plan that is understood and can be publicly supported by all” (Letter on ESSA
from Associate Commissioner Barbara Hickman on 7/12/16), I ask you to take a
look back–at what we agreed to seven years ago–on one key policy: the
accountability of our public schools.
The
Education Accountability Act of 2009 had bipartisan support at the Colorado
legislature. After the Senate “accepted House
amendments” it “repassed” SB 163 by a vote if 28-5. http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2009/05/01/accountability-bill-heads-to-governor/ (See box for co-sponsors)
BY SENATOR(S) Hudak and King K.,
Bacon, Boyd, Gibbs, Groff, Heath, Hodge, Morse, Newell, Romer, Sandoval,
Schwartz, Shaffer B., Spence, Tochtrop, Williams, Carroll M., Penry, White;
also REPRESENTATIVE(S) Middleton and Massey, Ferrandino, Fischer, Frangas,
Gardner B., Labuda, Merrifield, Pace, Pommer, Ryden, Scanlan, Schafer S.,
Solano, Stephens, Summers, Todd, Vigil. https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/cdedepcom/download/pdf/senatebill163.pdf
|
Last I looked, SB 163 is still the law. (See Article 11, Education
Accountability, under Colorado School Laws.)
I hope Another View encourages questioning and rethinking, but my sense
is our short-term commissioner, Rich Crandall, overstated what ESSA would—or
should–mean.
Last April 13, Chalkbeat Colorado’s headline read:
Commissioner Crandall wants Colorado to rethink
everything from tests to teacher recruitment
Nic Garcia opened
his article this away: “Colorado education chief Richard Crandall wants
to use newfound freedom from federal regulations to craft a long-term vision
for the state’s education community.”
Crandall—Rich, we hardly knew
ye!—was not alone in stressing freedom and flexibility in ESSA. Many make equally inflated claims suggesting
ESSA is a revolutionary change. We hear
echoes of the Sons of Liberty—Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry—protesting the tyranny
of No Child Left Behind (or the intrusive Race to the Top, depending on your
politics.) And now control is back in our hands. Victory!
Sorry folks—it always was, and is, in our hands. One example: Coloradans passed Senate Bill 163. Not imposed from on high by George W. Bush or
Barack Obama or the U.S. Department of Education.
My question: yes, ESSA allows for some rethinking, but do we still affirm
what SB 163 set out to do? Or do we
believe—yes, a rhetorical question—that anything goes as long as parents feel
good about sending enough kids to a school? (See box for state board’s decision
on Hope On-Line last July.) See the Addendum
for what SB 163 itself states the State Board of Education SHALL do.
Freedom
from Accountability? Freedom from SB
163?
State
Board of Education and Hope Online Learning Academy “The State Board of Education on Thursday blocked Aurora Public
Schools’ efforts to kick a struggling online charter school out of the
district’s boundaries, saying that parent choice trumped the school’s poor
performance on state tests.” http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2016/07/07/hope-online-gets-reprieve-from-state-board-will-continue-operating-in-aurora/#.WA4k1fkrLIU
Another View #149 made a different argument.
“Our job continues
to be to find that balance, to encourage ‘new and effective methods of
educating children that are proven to be effective….’ And when a
specific model does not prove effective, to admit it.
And to act. No need to invite kids to bad schools.”
|
In 2009, having passed legislation to create standards in 1993, and
assessments to measure achievement and growth in 1998, we passed SB 163 to
provide the key third leg: to insist that there would be “support” and (if
necessary) “intervention” for districts and schools that showed chronic low
performance. In essence, we passed a
bill giving some teeth to the standards and assessments—saying that we believe
we owe our students good public education, and
when that is not offered, there would be real consequences.
Are we rethinking that?
Our ESSA discussions address innumerable
topics. I speak to a more narrow – but crucial—point.
If SB 163 is the law, are we carrying it out in good faith?
Do we think it needs fixing?
Do we think the whole idea of schools and districts being accountable
to the state is flawed?
Do we think parent choice trumps Senate Bill 163, and that the state
board is not “responsible for deciding on sanctions for the state’s
poorest-performing schools that have failed to improve”?
Summary
of SB 09-163 (Accountability Alignment)*
(Bold
mine)
|
Comment
– Nov. 2016
|
The Accountability Alignment Bill builds upon and incorporates:
• HB-07-1048, which established student
academic growth as the cornerstone of Colorado’s educational
accountability system
• SB-08-212, which establishes readiness
for Postsecondary and Workforce success as Colorado’s overarching goal
for all students
• SB-00-186, by updating its core concepts in recognition of lessons
learned and new technology, while retaining its high expectations and
accountability for student results
• Revised district accreditation process established by CDE in 2008
in cooperation with school districts throughout the state
• Approval by the U.S. Department of Education of the Colorado Growth
Model for AYP purposes
|
·
To be fair to schools where
students arrive performing well below grade level, it is good that we
emphasize growth. But let’s not succumb to the notion that
growth is all that matters. The ultimate goal for accountability
remains: to assess if our students meet our standards.
·
“Readiness
for Postsecondary
Success” is a much higher
expectation than graduating from high school. (See remediation rates.)
|
The major purposes of the bill include:
1. Aligning conflicting accountability systems into a single system
that passes federal muster
2. Modernizing and aligning reporting of state, district and school
performance information
3. Creating a fairer, clearer and more effective cycle of support and
intervention
4. Enhancing state, district and school oversight of improvement
efforts
|
·
OK, we had then and still have
federal guidelines. But NCLB did not, nor does ESSA, create mandates
that conflict with Colorado’s affirmation that public education should be
accountable. We chose to have
system that is accountable. (And still do, yes?)
·
Intervention.
A necessary
consequence, in some cases.
|
1. Align conflicting accountability systems through common
performance indicators, enabling a
single accountability system for state and federal purposes
·
Establishes
an expanded set of State Performance Indicators for the state, districts
and schools
-Student academic growth
(measured by the Colorado Growth Model)
-Student achievement
levels (measured by the percent of students scoring advanced, proficient,
partially proficient and unsatisfactory
-Extent of achievement
gaps based on income and ethnicity
-Postsecondary readiness
(measured by graduation rates and ACT/PWR)
·
Performance indicators selected to be
consistent with the revised district accreditation process and federal
expectations
·
Requires the Colorado State Board of Education
to adopt statewide targets on each and report results
|
·
Not CSAP anymore, and questions
on PARCC persist, but “a
single accountability system” still matters, yes? Or do we allow 179 districts or 1,850
schools to develop their own measures of assessment? We are not OK with proficiency in Denver or Divide being equal
to partially proficient or unsatisfactory in Dolores or Durango, true?
·
“Establishes
an expanded set of
State Performance Indicators” –
Of course we should do our best to improve our indicators. Thanks, ESSA, for
encouraging this. But let’s agree we can’t expand forever; given their limits,
the indicators have value. Yes?
|
2. Modernize and align reporting through 21st century technology and improved public disclosure and access
• Builds on the highly interactive Colorado Growth Model displays to
provide State Performance Reports, District Performance Reports and School
Performance Reports
- Provide results on the state education
performance indicators and data required by state and federal law
|
Teaching grades 7-8 (ages ago!) in 2002-2005, I had CSAP results for
my 7th graders in August, the same students I would then teach in 8th
grade. Useful and timely. Sadly, 21st technology & PARCC have
not improved matters. Let’s fix this.
|
3. Enhance oversight of improvement strategies for low-performing
districts and schools supported by a State
Review panel appointed by commissioner
• Creates authority for the Commissioner to appoint a State Review
Panel to evaluate district and school improvement strategies and make recommendations on needed interventions
|
Done. CDE and the State
Review Panel spend enormous time and effort to carry this out. But surely we can acknowledge that “recommendations on needed interventions”
often prove insufficient for real change to occur.
|
4. Create a fairer, clearer and more effective cycle of support and
intervention
• Provide high quality CDE service and support:…
• Assign district accreditation categories and school improvement
categories based on results related to state targets…
• Align district accreditation categories with levels of support and
improvement required while retaining six levels of performance categories,
(including)
- Level 6: Unaccredited – State Board determines whether
situation warrants district reorganization, external management, conversion
to innovative school or school zone status, conversion to a charter school or
school closure
|
·
Done, to
a degree.
·
Done
·
Done
·
To be done?
|
*From 2-page summary at CDE’s website
– dated May 7, 2009
Another
View is a newsletter by Peter Huidekoper Jr. Comments are welcome. 303-757-1225 - peterhdkpr@gmail.com
Addendum
From SB 163
– 09 - CONCERNING THE EDUCATION
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/cdedepcom/download/pdf/senatebill163.pdf
(All bold mine)
22-11-207. Accreditation
categories - criteria - rules.
(1) THE STATE BOARD SHALL PROMULGATE RULES TO ESTABLISH ACCREDITATION
CATEGORIES (p. 29)
(2) THE STATE BOARD SHALL PROMULGATE RULES ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVE,
MEASURABLE CRITERIA THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHALL APPLY IN DETERMINING THE
APPROPRIATE ACCREDITATION CATEGORY FOR EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE INSTITUTE,
PLACING THE GREATEST EMPHASIS ON ATTAINMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS. (p.
29-30)
22-11-208. Accreditation - annual
review - supports and interventions - rules.
(4) THE STATE BOARD BY RULE SHALL SPECIFY HOW LONG A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR
THE INSTITUTE MAY REMAIN IN AN ACCREDITATION CATEGORY THAT IS BELOW ACCREDITED;
EXCEPT THAT THE STATE BOARD SHALL NOT
ALLOW A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR THE INSTITUTE TO REMAIN AT ACCREDITED WITH PRIORITY
IMPROVEMENT PLAN OR BELOW FOR LONGER THAN A TOTAL OF FIVE CONSECUTIVE SCHOOL
YEARS BEFORE REMOVING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OR THE INSTITUTE'S ACCREDITATION AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 22-11-209. (p. 31)
(d) THE STATE BOARD BY RULE SHALL ESTABLISH THE TIME FRAMES IN WHICH
THE DEPARTMENT SHALL REVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT AND INSTITUTE PERFORMANCE AND
DETERMINE AND REPORT EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT'S AND THE INSTITUTE'S APPROPRIATE
ACCREDITATION CATEGORY…. (p. 32)
22-11-209. Removal of
accreditation - recommendation - review - appeal - rules.
(3) BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE COMMISSIONER, AND THE STATE REVIEW PANEL, THE STATE BOARD SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER
TO REMOVE A SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OR THE INSTITUTE'S ACCREDITATION. IF THE STATE
BOARD REMOVES A SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OR THE INSTITUTE'S ACCREDITATION, THE STATE BOARD SHALL NOTIFY THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT OR THE INSTITUTE OF THE ACTIONS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR THE INSTITUTE
IS REQUIRED TO TAKE. (p. 36)
22-11-210. Public schools -
annual review - plans - supports and interventions - rules.
(5) (a) IF A PUBLIC SCHOOL FAILS
TO MAKE ADEQUATE PROGRESS UNDER ITS TURNAROUND PLAN OR CONTINUES TO OPERATE
UNDER A PRIORITY IMPROVEMENT OR TURNAROUND PLAN FOR A COMBINED TOTAL OF FIVE
CONSECUTIVE SCHOOL YEARS, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL ASSIGN THE STATE REVIEW PANEL
TO CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE PUBLIC SCHOOL'S PERFORMANCE AND DETERMINE WHETHER TO
RECOMMEND:…. (p. 40)
(b) THE STATE REVIEW PANEL SHALL
PRESENT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSIONER AND TO THE STATE BOARD. TAKING
THE RECOMMENDATIONS INTO ACCOUNT, THE
STATE BOARD SHALL DETERMINE WHICH OF THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (a)
OF THIS SUBSECTION (5) THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD FOR A DISTRICT PUBLIC SCHOOL OR
THE INSTITUTE FOR AN INSTITUTE CHARTER SCHOOL SHALL TAKE REGARDING THE PUBLIC
SCHOOL AND DIRECT THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD OR INSTITUTE ACCORDINGLY. (p. 41)
No comments:
Post a Comment