Another View: AV#157 - On closing schools – Swallow hard and admit it: yes, even educators can fail

I begin this way because one of the sentiments we hear from educators—time and again—is that we never do. Fail. As if we are somehow a different species from the rest of mankind.

We admit that projects fail (see box). Government, business, research—they can fail. Doctors and nurses, lawyers and policemen … men and women in public service, in nonprofits, good people in noble work to help the vulnerable … can fail.

But educators? No, we could never… no, not us.

Dec. 16, 2016 (Chalkbeat Colorado) - Denver school board votes to close three low-performing schools under new policy

Dec. 19, 2016 (The Denver Post) - DPS decision to close schools was tough but necessary – (editorial)

Denver Public Schools officials sent a clear message late last Thursday night that the district will not tolerate failure.

By closing three underperforming elementary schools, the school board refused to accept subpar academic performance for any of Denver’s children for a moment longer.

We agree and applaud them for making the tough decision.

After hours of impassioned testimony from parents and teachers hoping to spare the schools from closure, school board members stood by their previous decision to close schools that fail to meet the district’s expectations. http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/19/dps-decision-to-close-schools-was-tough-but-necessary/?utm_source=Chalkbeat+Colorado&utm_campaign=9580a9ae97-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_588bc72838-9580a9ae97-86514381

Of the 19 comments or letters to the editor, only one response agreed with the Post’s editorial board and the decision of the Denver school board. One letter read, in part:

Dec. 21, 2016 (The Denver Post) –

The Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) strongly disagrees with the closure of Amesse, Greenlee and Gilpin Montessori elementary schools. We’re not convinced the decision-making process allowed for concerns of the community to be properly heard and considered.

The closures are predicated on the notion that schools are “failing.” Yet when Gilpin Montessori introduced data demonstrating its final School Quality Review (SQR) score (which determines whether doors stay open or closed) was incorrect, the district refused to acknowledge it. Also, the board meeting failed to accommodate the numbers of parents and teachers attending to argue against closures.

Henry Roman, Littleton - The writer is president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association.

Say anything – except this: “the school has failed”

It feels arrogant to assert that public schools never deserve to close. As if what educators create and touch is by definition exempt from the flaws and frailties of every other profession and walk of life.

As if schools are—not too big to fail, like certain corrupt financial institutions—but too sacred to close.

Really?

Or perhaps the argument is: yes, schools struggle. Or—OK, yes, they have revolving doors of principals and teachers, a culture that the faculty itself describes as toxic, little urgency about the need for dramatic improvement, never enough resources … sure, we see that .... But they never actually fail.

As if to even speak of failure is terribly unfair to the well-meaning, devoted folks who show up every day trying their best. Besides, it does not take into account the impact of poverty, racism, trauma….

So say anything, my fellow educators argue.

But do not say, the school has failed.

Where it can be a matter of life or death: “The nature of human fallibility”

We can learn from other professions.

Educators might do well to listen to Dr. Atul Gawande’s lecture, “Why doctors fail.”*

He begins by recounting scary moments when his 11-day old son was diagnosed with a heart problem. Gawande weaves that experience–after two surgeries, his son was doing well–into a look at failure in the world of medicine.

There was an essay that I read two decades ago that I think has influenced almost every bit of writing and research I’ve done ever since. It was by two philosophers – Samuel Gorovitz and Alasdair MacIntyre – and their subject was the nature of human fallibility. They wondered why human beings fail at anything that we set out to do. Why, for example, would a meteorologist fail to correctly predict where a hurricane was going to make landfall, or why might a doctor fail to figure out what was going on inside my son and fix it? They argued that there are two primary reasons why we might fail. The first is ignorance: we have only a limited understanding of all of the relevant physical laws and conditions that apply to any given problem or circumstance. The second reason, however, they called “ineptitude”, meaning that the knowledge exists but an individual or a group of individuals fail to apply that knowledge correctly.

It is uncomfortable looking inside our fallibility. We have a fear of looking. We’re like the doctors who dug up bodies in the 19th century to dissect them, in order to know what was really happening inside. We’re looking inside our systems and how they really work. And like before, what we find is messier than we knew and sometimes messier than we might have wanted to know.

In some ways, turning on the cameras inside our world can be more treacherous. There’s a reason that Gorovitz and MacIntyre labelled the kind of failures we have “ineptitude”. There’s a sense that there’s some shame or guilt attached to the fact that we don’t get it right all the time. And exposing this reality can make people more angry than exposing the reality of how the body works.

(*Dr. Gawande is a surgeon and writer. This is an edited version of first BBC Reith lecture. The four-part series is called The Future of Medicine. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/02/-sp-why-doctors-fail-reith-lecture-atul-gawande)

Consequences: Accredited on Probation, on Turnaround … again… and again

John B. King, in his Commentary for Education Week just before completing his term as U.S. Secretary of Education:

“We also must have the courage to hold ourselves accountable for students' success. Without accountability, standards are meaningless and equity is a charade.” http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/01/18/a-dispatch-from-the-outgoing-us-education.html

Shame, guilt, anger.

It’s a human business, to be a school person.

And we are not a special class of people, incapable of failure.

A brief digression. At the risk of sounding smug and self-righteous, the men and women I taught and coached with in five different schools were nicer than most folks I meet. Less selfish. Imperfect, a few rascals—sure, but—on the whole—exceptionally decent.

But I would be a liar if I said we—myself included—did not fail to serve our students from time to time.

And so, yes, put 30 or 40 of us together in one building, and we can fail, as a faculty and staff. And if and when that happens, there should be consequences that end this failure.

And no, I do not mean just labeling the school on a School Performance Framework as Accredited on Probation (DPS) or on Turnaround (CDE). For the fourth or fifth time….

Because that does not end the failure.

Gilpin and Greenlee: 2008-09 to 2015-16 (Eight years)

Perhaps I have failed here—to convince you. If so, I would ask critics of school closures to at least be wary of saying: we have to keep the school open for the kids’ sake.

The details that follow (Addendum A) indicate red flags—for so many years—based on the results at Gilpin and Greenlee. Perhaps of little interest to you, but first, one request: Imagine a group of kids walking into Gilpin or Greenlee seven years ago–in August, 2009—as kindergarten students. Let’s name two of them Alicia and Antonio. Consider the results at these schools over the course of their six years, the entire K-5 experience for these children.

Can anyone say these schools did not have a fair chance to improve?

There comes a time, as the Denver school board rightly decided—too late for far too many kids, it must be said—to acknowledge failure, and close a school.

(Addendum B provides more specific updates reported from 2010 on Gilpin and Greenlee. Included to support my point: DPS has not acted too hastily in shutting down these schools. To the contrary.)

If you think I am suggesting closing schools is easy – please see:

Voices: A call for conversation around closing schools - BY PETER HUIDEKOPER JR - MAY 16, 2013

http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2013/05/16/voices-a-call-for-conversation-around-closing-schools/

“Those of us who can sound high and mighty about the need for the closure of low-performing schools often appear deaf to the response of the community in and around these troubled schools. It is critical we stay attentive to all the factors that make a school closure hard and painful.”

Voices: Lessons learned on turnarounds and closure: Be bold - BY PETER HUIDEKOPER JR - JULY 18, 2013

https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2013/07/18/voices-lesson-learned-on-turnarounds-and-closure-be-bold/

School Performance Framework – DPS and State of Colorado – 2008-2016

Gilpin

*Alicia and Antonio are in …*	School year	Denver Public School’s School Performance Framework*			Colorado Department of Education’s School Performance Framework**
		% Points earned	Denver Public School’s SPF – Accredited at what level ***	Status ***	Colorado’s SPF Total % Points Earned		Status
	2008-09	32%	On Probation	Red	--		--
Kindergarten	2009-10	36%	On Priority Watch	Orange	47.8%		Priority Improvement
1^stgrade	2010-11	45%	On Watch	Yellow	50.8%		Improvement
2^nd grade	2011-12	27%	On Probation	Red	42%		Turnaround-year 1
3^rd grade	2012-13	28%	On Probation	Red	44.6%		Turnaround- year 2
4^th grade	2013-14	35%	On Priority Watch	Orange	41.3%		Priority Improvement - year 3
5^th grade	2014-15		No rating – new tests
	2015-16	19%	On Probation	Red		32.5%	Turnaround - year 4

*Each year posted at http://spf.dpsk12.org/en/ **CDE’s website - http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworkresults

Greenlee

*Alicia and Antonio are in …*	School year	Denver Public School’s SPF			Colorado Department of Education’s SPF
		% Points earned	Denver Public School’s SPF – Accredited at what level – Accredited …	Status	Colorado’s School Performance Framework	Status
	2008-09	22%	On Probation	Red	Closed Greenlee K-8	--
kindergarten	2009-10	25%	On Probation	Red	Considered a new school	Performance
1^st grade	2010-11	41%	On Watch	Yellow	30.8%	Turnaround – year 1
2^nd grade	2011-12	26%	On Probation	Red	47.4%	Turnaround – year 2
3^rd grade	2012-13	25%	On Probation	Red	39.5%	Turnaround – year 3
4^th grade	2013-14	27.5%	On Probation	Red	49.9%	Turnaround – year 4
5^th grade	2014-15		No rating – new tests
	2015-16	38%	On Priority Watch	Orange	52%	Priority Improvement – year 5

***In DPS Framework, 5 categories:

1. Distinguished

2. Meets Expectations

3. On Watch ………………Yellow is the third lowest (and third highest) rating – Accredited On Watch

4. On Priority Watch …….. Orange is second lowest rating – Accredited On Priority Watch

5. On Probation ……………. Red is lowest rating – Accredited On Probation

DPS currently uses these explanations for these three categories.

· Accredited on Watch (Yellow): This means that the school is not doing as well as it could be, and that the school has quite a few areas to focus on for improvement. “On watch” means that DPS provides extra support and specific departments work with the school to make sure they are progressing.

· Accredited on Priority Watch (Orange): This means that the school has many areas that it needs to focus on. In this case, DPS often identifies additional ways to support a school. Some types of support might include additional money, more staff or partnerships with non-profits.

· Accredited on Probation (Red): This means that the school is performing significantly below expectations and needs significant additional support. DPS will provide intensive support to help the school make the dramatic changes its students need to succeed. In some cases, if performance has been persistently low, DPS may make changes to academic programs or school staff. Or the Board of Education may determine that we need to restart the school with one that will better meet the needs of our students and community.

End text #157

Addendum A

Gilpin and Greenlee – Six, seven, eight years? Big grants. Little progress. Enough!

2010

Efforts to create “dramatic improvement” at Gilpin and Greenlee were well underway in 2010.

April 2010 - The Obama Administration announced the beginning of the federal School Improvement Grant SIG) “supporting districts with chronically low performing schools in the lowest 5 percent of achievement as indicated by state assessments.”

From Public Impact’s School Turnaround in Colorado

“Between 2009 and 2010, the state identified nearly 100 schools for dramatic intervention, including 19 SIG Program and 82 schools under the state Education Accountability Act (EAA).”

Of 19 Colorado low-performing schools in Colorado that the Colorado Department of Education saw as eligible and deserving of the nearly $40 million committed to our state, over a three year period, 9 of the schools were in Denver Public Schools: Montbello, North, Noel, Philips, Rishel, Lake, Skyland, Greenlee, and Gilpin.

May 2010 - Denver Public Schools presented the Colorado Department of Education with 230-pages of “Plans for Dramatic Improvement” at these schools. The “Action Plan for Dramatic Improvement” for Greenlee is 19 pages, for Gilpin, 16 pages.

Two quotes from the opening paragraphs of the plan - for Greenlee, first, and then for Gilpin. Note the passages in bold (mine). The School Performance Framework (above) reveals chronic low performance over the next six years; these passages remind us there were clear signs of trouble well before 2010-11.

Greenlee Elementary, currently a K-8 school, is the second lowest-performing elementary school according to the district’s School Performance Framework, a tool used by the district to evaluate school performance in terms of student achievement and overall organizational strength using a variety of longitudinal measures. Greenlee’s student achievement is low, with only 1/3 or less of students performing at proficient levels on achievement tests, and has been static or in decline over the past three years. In 2009, only 30% of students are at or above proficient in reading or math, 21% in writing, and only 6% in science.

Gilpin is one of the lowest performing elementary schools in DPS according to the district’s SPF…. Gilpin’s student achievement is low, with only 1/5 or less of students performing at proficient levels on achievement tests, which is low even compared to the lowest-performing schools. This dismal performance has been consistent over the past several years. In 2009, only 21% of students are at or above proficient in reading or 14% in math, and 13% in writing. Compared to even the lowest performing schools, the proficiency percentages are extremely low.

Oct. 10, 2010 - “DPS Receives $14.4 Million in School-Turnaround Grants” (Press release)

The DPS schools awarded funds under the turnaround grants in Far Northeast Denver include:

Gilpin K-8 – transformed into a Montessori program in 2008

Greenlee Elementary School – The Board voted in November to turnaround Greenlee; the school will have new leadership with the ability to shape the school’s staff and will implement a new comprehensive literacy program.

(That fall is when I first looked at the Greenlee and Gilpin proposals; I wrote a report for the Donnell-Kay Foundation on the federal School Improvement Grant to turn around low-performing schools.)

	Gilpin	Greenlee
2010-11	374,767	671,148
2011-12	373,818	669,448
2012-13	373,227	668,390
TOTAL	$1,121,812	$2,008,986

Here is the budget for the federal grant to the two schools:

Over $3.1 million, then, was directed to bring about major improvement at these two schools.

2011 - 2013

The press gave little attention to the SIG grants in Denver. A Plus Denver (now A Plus Colorado) produced annual reports over several years (I worked on two of them). I also wrote my own assessment of the SIG effort in several newsletters

Here is what one could have read about Gilpin and Greenlee over several years. Signs of progress?

Oct. 2011 – Excerpt from Turning Around Low-achieving Schools in Colorado (A Plus Denver)

This report included a look at the results over the first year for the 19 schools in cohort one of the federal School Improvement Grant. Considering the weak overall results, and noting that the Colorado Department of Education had recently received another $7.5 million for a second cohort of turnaround schools, the report raised several questions. One asked: “Withhold funds until districts and schools indicate lessons learned?” and went on to comment:

If the results from year one seem “lackluster,” should CDE hold back on distributing year two funds until the districts and schools involved produce reports indicating what they have learned from their first year and what they plan to do differently in year two? Does CDE (and/or the U.S. Department of Education) have the ability to cut off funds for year two and/or year three if and when it finds an effort not moving forward successfully?

(The report included a response from CDE explaining its renewal process.)

NOTE: A year later “CDE withdrew SIG funds for Pueblo’s Freed and Roncalli for 2012-13 after two years of poor performance.” (From the A Plus Denver report, Make a Wish – next page.) I was also asking why CDE continued to fund schools like Gilpin and Greenlee; see excerpt from AV #89 below.

Aug. 23, 2012 - Excerpt from Another View #86 –

The School Improvement Grant to DPS and Pueblo City 60

Change in students scoring - Proficient and Advanced from 2011 to 2012 - down in 5/6 categories

	Reading	Writing	Math
District average	2.71	2.2	1.3
Greenlee Elementary	+6.5	-5.53	-5.46
Gilpin Elementary	-8.68	-1.18	-20.88

(http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2012/08/09/42243-voices-is-slow-and-steady-enough-for-dps)

And who can see much “promise” after more than $3 million has been spent to improve Gilpin, Greenlee, and Lake?

A closer look:

The 6 DPS schools receiving SIG funds for turnaround/transformation efforts

Again, the average growth in DPS for 2012 was 54% in Reading. 57% in Writing, 53% in Math. Now look at the six schools receiving year two SIG funds. Growth in 2012 is only apparent at North High…. At Gilpin, Greenlee, and Montbello, low growth means that with each passing year, an even higher percentage of their students are unlikely to meet state standards by the time they graduate.

GILPIN ELEMENTARY

Subject	Grade level	Median Growth Percentile*	Adequate Growth Percentile*	% Catching Up*	% Keeping Up*
Reading	Elementary	41	62	0%	66.7%
Math	Elementary	11.5	87	0%	16.7%
Writing	Elementary	30	74	14.8%	33.3%

GREENLEE ELEMENTARY

Subject	Grade level	Median Growth Percentile*	Adequate Growth Percentile*	% Catching Up*	% Keeping Up*
Reading	Elementary	42	57	26.2%	59.4%
Math	Elementary	42	77	5.9%	33.5%
Writing	Elementary	41	72	13.6%	33.5%

*The Colorado Growth Model uses four key indicators – based on an analysis of students’ testing history – to paint a picture of academic progress by school and district:

Median Growth Percentile: Shows how much a group of students is progressing compared to others. Typical growth for an individual student centers around 50. Lower means slower growth, higher means better than average.

Adequate Growth Percentile: Shows the growth that students needed on average in the past year to reach or maintain proficiency within three years or by the tenth grade, whichever comes first. With this indicator, lower is better. Lower numbers mean less growth is required.

“Catching up”: The percentage of students who previously scored below proficient in this subject but who have shown enough growth in the past year to reach proficiency within three years or by 10th grade. They’re “catching up” to proficiency so a higher number is better.

“Keeping up”: The percentage of students who previously scored proficient and who are on track to maintain that level over three years or through 10th grade. They’re “keeping up” their proficiency so a higher number is better.

From Education News Colorado, http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2012/08/08/42114-find-your-schools-2012-growth-scores.

Oct. 4, 2012 - Excerpt from Another View #89 –

$14.8 million over three-years to turnaround efforts at six DPS schools –

Are grants for year three (2012-13) warranted?

Here is a look at the three-year story at the six Denver schools targeted by the School Improvement Grant.

From the Department of Accountability, Research & Evaluation at DPS –

School Performance Frameworks – 2010, 2011, and 2012 (Ratings and Growth Points)

	2010 % Earned Points	2010 SPF Rating	2011 % Earned Points	2011 SPF Rating	2012 % Earned Points	2012 SPF Rating	2012 Growth % Points
Gilpin	36%	Accredited on Priority Watch	45%	Accredited on Watch	27%	Accredited on Probation	32%
Greenlee	25%	Accredited on Probation	41%	Accredited on Watch	26%	Accredited on Probation	31%

Changes from 2010 to 2012

1. … Three of the schools again earned the lowest rating in 2012 – as they had in 2010: Greenlee, Rachel Noel, and Montbello. Gilpin moved down, from Accredited on Priority Watch to Accredited on Probation.

2. Growth points for the other five schools in 2012:

Gilpin - 32%

Greenlee – 31%

Have all six schools met the criteria needed to receive the third and final year of their grants?

Will CDE decide to hold back the funds that were to go to any of these six schools?

Will there be a public account of how these funds have been used the first two years, and on what basis CDE decides to fund or not fund these schools a third year?

Oct. 2012 – Excerpt from Colorado Turnaround Schools – Rays of Hope (A Plus Denver)

WEST DENVER NETWORK: Only two of the six schools in the West Denver Network showed significant overall growth … Less than half of the grades and subjects measured in the West Denver Network have shown growth above the state average of 50 percent. Greenlee has yet to achieve an observed growth score above 50 percent, whereas Gilpin showed some growth in 2011 but the most recent scores indicate the school has fallen back. In 2012, after receiving over $1 million in SIG funding, North High School has shown some improvement. But Gilpin and North have steep hills to climb; for there to be any hope of their students reaching proficiency by graduation, these schools will have to have growth scores far above 60 percent.

The report included a look at 5 years of CSAP results, both achievement and growth, in reading, writing, and math. (2008-2012)

Dec. 2013 – From Colorado’s Turnaround Schools 2010-2013: Make Wish (A Plus Denver)

[In the fall of 2013 A Plus Colorado had three years of data to look at for Gilpin, Greenlee, and the other schools that had been part of cohort one since the fall of 2010. The report presented the results for cohorts I, II, and III – through the 2012-13 school year.]

[What the report found on Academic Growth in the three cohorts was disturbing. For cohort I, it found that of the turnaround schools that were not new schools, only 4 of 14 performed better than the state average. (See graph on “marginal growth percentile compared to state” on “all subjects over funding period”-page 11). Gilpin and Greenlee were among the 10 cohort I schools where results on growth was the same or worse that the state average over those three years.]

Academic Growth

The Median Growth Percentile (MGP) represents students’ academic growth: the higher the percentile, the more students making gains. In Colorado, the average is 50% in reading, writing, and math, or 150 points overall. Students at those schools that exceeded 150 grew at a faster pace than their peer group. Those below 150 showed slower academic growth than students in their peer group at other schools.

(For all three cohorts, out of 37 schools) Only 20 schools beat the state average of 150, meaning 17 schools in Cohorts I, II, and III showed slower growth.

[Greenlee (under 125) and Gilpin (under 135) were among those 17 schools where growth was below the state average.]

2004 - 2015 (12 years)

This powerful graph (at School Digger) shows the Rank History for Gilpin Montessori Public School over a twelve year period, 2004-2015: https://www.schooldigger.com/go/CO/schools/0336000353/school.aspx?t=tbRankings

Addendum B

Google: Famous Failed Projects - About 22,800,000 results (!)

Project Failure: 10 Famous Failures and 5 Ways to Spot Them Before ...

Jan 1, 2014 - Project failure is no stranger to most teams, but there are ways to spot it before it makes headlines. Here are 10 of the most infamous failures ...

https://resources.workfront.com/project.../project-failure-10-famous-failures-and-5-w...

Biggest Product Failures In Business History - Business Insider

www.businessinsider.com/biggest-product-failures-in-business-history-2014-7

Examples of failed projects – Why Do Projects Fail?

http://calleam.com/WTPF/?tag=examples-of-failed-projects

Classic Mistakes – Why Do Projects Fail?* - Calleam Consulting

http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=799

The 25 Worst Business Failures in History - Business Pundit

www.businesspundit.com/the-25-worst-business-failures-in-history/

12 Technology failures in 2014 - Intelligent Head Quarters

www.intelligenthq.com/technology/the-biggest-technology-failures-of-2014/

10 Construction Projects That Broke the Bank | HowStuffWorks