Two–or three, four, or is it five?—roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one …
On March 9, 2017, as Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 became
the first of five low-performing districts to make their presentations to the
State Board of Education, we were reminded that the state has a limited number
of options in how it responds to years of poor results. Over the next two months,
as other districts and 12 schools report on their turnaround plans, I will be
curious to see how they—and often the Colorado Department of Education, working
with them to develop their plans—make the case for one of the options –
“innovation.”
Reviewing the history of how three of our
lowest-performing school districts (Pueblo, Aurora, and Adams 14) chose the
Innovation Zone or Innovation School[i]
as the path forward (or at least did at one point; Adams 14 has stepped back
from a district-wide push in this direction), I find surprisingly broad support
for this strategy—from superintendents, school boards, and state review teams. Another View, as is often the case,
provides a dissenting view. But I do not feel alone. Two members of the State Board of Education,
Angelika Schroeder and Steve Durham, have voiced their own doubts. Or, at
least, a similar concern …. (See section
II, below, on Pueblo - EXCERPTS FROM FAILURE TO LAUNCH.)
I am eager to see how the seven-member state board
votes on innovation proposals, based on the evidence to date.
**
What are the options for schools and
districts? Here is Chalkbeat Colorado’s
summary of the choices available for “intervention”:
So how is the state going to step in? (Bold
mine throughout this newsletter.)
The
state has a menu of options for both schools and districts.
For a persistently struggling
school, the state may direct the local school board to:
·
Close
it.
·
Hand
it over to a charter management organization.
·
Contract
with a third party to help run the school.
·
Create
an innovation plan that spells out
strategies and waivers from school and state policy to boost student learning.
For districts, the state has all
of the above options, but may also direct the local school board to:
- Merge with a nearby high-performing district (although this would require a ballot question — and this option is a very hard sell politically).
- Hire a third party to help manage all or some portion of the school district.
- Apply for innovation status district-wide.*
There’s also an “other” option for school districts?
That part of the law is ambiguous. But state officials take it to mean some combination of the options.
*District Zone of Innovation:
Districts
to design and implement innovative ideas and practices to better meet student
needs.
Districts
to obtain waivers from state and local policies and collective bargaining
agreements that challenge their ability to execute their ideas and enable
flexibilities.
|
Chalkbeat Colorado’s summary put the matter bluntly: “… time is up for the schools
and districts. State officials are about to intervene in the hopes of
setting them on the right course.”
Listening to over five hours of testimony on March 9 from
Montezuma-Cortez and, later that day, from Julesberg, as well as substantial q and a with the state board, we were
all reminded: getting this right will be hard.
No easy answers.
This newsletter offers none.
I simply ask one question: on what
basis is innovation being chosen as an effective turnaround strategy? Or, to
rephrase, how is innovation setting districts “on the right course”?
I.
Three districts line up around Innovation Zone or Innovation Plans
It is troubling when you see a district in trouble
try a “reform” without evidence it has proven effective elsewhere … followed by a second district, also in dire
straits, try the same “reform”… and then
you hear that a third—might step down this blind alley…. As of 2015, here was their 5-year SPF rating.
Colorado School Performance Framework (SPF) Rating
It is unclear why, as of 2015, Innovation Zones
became the preferred option for several districts “on the Accountability Clock.” But the pattern is clear.
Colorado School Performance Framework (SPF) Rating
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
2011-12
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
|
Pueblo City Schools
|
Priority
Improvement – year 1
|
Turnaround – year
2
|
Priority
Improvement – year 3
|
Priority
Improvement – year 4
|
Priority
Improvement – year 5
|
Aurora Public Schools
|
Improvement
|
Priority
Improvement – year 1
|
Priority
Improvement – year 2
|
Priority
Improvement – year 3
|
Priority
Improvement – year 4
|
Adams 14
|
Turnaround – year
1
|
Turnaround – year
2
|
Turnaround – year
3
|
Priority
Improvement – year 4
|
Priority
Improvement – year 5
|
For accreditation purposes, the state accredits
districts in one of four categories.
Being placed in one of the bottom two categories moves the school a
step forward on the “state’s accountability clock.”
|
Performance
Improvement
Priority Improvement
Turnaround
|
||||
Superintendents, review teams, state
panels – go for it!
1. Superintendents
Dr. Maggie Lopez and Dr. Constance Jones in Pueblo; Dr. Rico Munn in Aurora;
and Pat Sanchez in Adams 14 (three of whom, Lopez, Jones,. and Sanchez, have since
resigned), played a leading role in this push.
2. After
assessing the districts and what would make sense for their next step, both the
State Review Panel and the Colorado Department of Education recommended or supported innovation plans.
Pueblo:
“A State Review Panel of Colorado
educators conducted a document review of the Unified School Improvement Plans
and completed a site visit at several schools included in the Pueblo Innovation
Zone as well as a Pueblo City Schools District review. The panel recommended
innovation school status for the district because of the steps the district has
already put into place to create an Innovation Zone.” (From Innovation Application to CDE from
Pueblo City Schools -http://www.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/AD6LPF570809/$file/PCS%20I-zone_FINAL%205.6.16.pdf.)
Aurora:
“State Recommendations for Innovation - During the month of November
2015, a team from the CDE’s Federal Programs Unit conducted an onsite
monitoring visit (of Aurora Central High School) to evaluate the implementation
and outcomes of ACHS’ TIG (Tiered Intervention Grant). (Afterwards) the CDE Office of School and
District Performance issued a letter to complement the Office of Federal
Program’s TIG review. The letter articulated State concerns and recommendations
for ACHS to address in the Innovation Application. Specifically, the office
noted that in order for CDE to support an Innovation Application for ACHS, it
must build upon and go further than the original TIG plan addressing specific
structures to improve student attendance, engagement, and achievement.”
(Innovation Application to CDE from Aurora Central High-
Adams
14:
“The State Review Panel recommends Innovation Zone status for the Adams
14 School District, based on an analysis of compiled data and documentation, as
well as a site visit conducted on May 6, 2015…. The SRP recommends that the
district consider creating an Innovation Zone as a pilot program with several
district-identified schools prior to creating an Innovation District, as there
may not be adequate resources and capacity to move the entire district to the
Innovation District level at the same time.”
(From the Unified Improvement
Plan for 2015-16, Adams County 14 - https://cedar2.cde.state.co.us/documents/UIP2016/0030-0000.pdf.)
Next
up? Greeley?
Greeley-Evans District 6, too, is now thinking of
Innovation Zone (See Addendum A) as the way:
(a) to improve and (maybe an even bigger reason;
see opening sentence of the Greeley Tribune article)
(b) to get off the accountability clock (or, the more colloquial version, to get the state off their back).
Who’s next?
II. And innovation is the preferred option
because …
Perhaps these districts genuinely believe this is
exactly what they need. It also could be
that—with CDE-related reviewers saying this is their best hope of improving
(and, not incidentally, of avoiding sanctions by the state board), they feel it
is safest to follow their advice. I can
imagine a district saying—those on the state board of education will have to
appreciate that we did not resist or ignore what outsiders encouraged us to do. Or: If you don’t like our proposal around
the Innovation Zone, don’t blame us—it wasn’t our idea!
Whatever the cause, let’s review and see how we got
here. In the process, I ask you to keep in mind a more specific version of my
basic question: Why would any district think Pueblo or APS has set a
good precedent?
Innovation Status – a brief history – from
Pueblo to Aurora to … Adams 14?
An attempt to provide a relatively objective
summary of events, with a few subjective asides (in italics) tossed in
to express my doubts.
#1
- Pueblo City Schools
Pueblo was first, and thus will get the most attention here.
Q- Is this
what other districts saw as the model?
Back in 2010, three middle schools: Pitts, Risley, and Roncalli – were
among the six low-performing schools in Pueblo awarded the federal School
Improvement Grant (SIG). After those
first two years, the schools’ rating on the state’s School Performance Framework (SPF) looked dismal.
2009-10 (before
SIG grant)
|
2010-11 (year 1 of
SIG Grant)
|
2011-12 (year 2)
|
|
Pitts
Middle
|
TURNAROUND
|
TURNAROUND
|
TURNAROUND
|
Risley
Middle
|
TURNAROUND
|
TURNAROUND
|
TURNAROUND
|
Roncalli Middle
|
PRIORITY
IMPROVEMENT
|
TURNAROUND
|
TURNAROUND*
|
*(The state saw so little
progress at Roncalli that it did not send the SIG funds for year three.)
Pueblo 60 no doubt felt disappointed at the SIG efforts. In 2012 the Pueblo school board “approved the
middle school realignment proposal, allowing each middle school to reinvent
itself and develop a unique educational focus to facilitate improved achievement”
(http://www.cde.state.co.us/choice/pittsinnovationplan).
Each proposed significant change:
Pitts Middle would become Pueblo Academy of the Arts; Risley would adopt the
International Baccalaureate curriculum and be called the Risley
International Academy of Innovation; and Roncalli would create a math and science focus and be
named Roncalli STEM Academy. The
redesigns would begin in the 2013-14 school year.
April
2013 -
Pueblo 60 went to the state board the following spring, with
applications from the three schools to be Innovation
Schools. In their application to the
state, both Risley and Roncalli gave this rationale: “School autonomy is a
critical tool for implementing a new school design that is focused on
achievement for every student and is crafted by and for our unique community.”[ii] Pitts Middle wrote: “Innovation status established the flexibility to go beyond the
standard curriculum to provide extended learning opportunities in both
academics and the arts.”[iii]
*Evidence
Addendum B reveals the lack of evidence on academic improvement in most
Innovation Schools in CDE’s annual report of March 2013. This data was
available to both Pueblo and the state board. Note similar findings ever
since.
See also section III – ESSA and
evidence.
|
Q
- By that spring, did the Pueblo school board have any evidence (see box- right) that Innovation status had been a key
factor in successful turnaround efforts in any other Colorado district? Did the state board?
May
2013 - The state board approved Innovation
Status for all three schools.
In the fall of 2015, the three
largest school districts in Colorado entering YEAR 5 on Priority Improvement
on the state’s School Performance Framework were: Adams County 14, Pueblo
City Schools, and Westminster 50. The largest district entering YEAR 4: Aurora Public Schools.
|
Over
the next two years, 2013-14 and 2014-15, the
schools operated as Innovation Schools.
October 2015 - Pueblo
City Schools (see box: a district on year 5 on the accountability clock) hoped to expand this effort,
seeking to add three schools and create an Innovation
Zone for all six.
Q - Again, I ask, based on
what evidence?
Before
recounting what followed over the next year, take a look at the school’s SPF for
2013, prior to Innovation Status,
and for the following year.
Innovation
status leads to renaming, to restructuring, and to – better results?
School Performance Framework - for year prior
to, and after, year one on Innovation
Pueblo
60
|
2012-13 - Before
|
2013-14 - After
|
Pitts Middle –
now Pueblo Academy of Arts
|
IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
50.6% pts
|
TURNAROUND – year 1
29.1%
|
Risley Middle –
now Risley
International Academy of Innovation
|
PRIORITY
IMPROVEMENT
– year 4
41.6% pts
|
TURNAROUND – year 5
33% pts
|
Roncalli Middle –
Now called Roncalli STEM Academy
|
TURNAROUND – year 4
25.1% pts
|
TURNAROUND – year 5
25.1% pts
|
District ponders
innovation zone - Would unite six schools under
banner
While it’s still too early to determine whether converting
three low-performing middle schools into schools of innovation will turn around
achievement in those buildings, Pueblo City Schools (D60) officials aren’t waiting for all the results.
Based on the positive cultural changes already experienced at the
Roncalli STEM Academy, Risley International School of Innovation and Pueblo
Academy of Arts (formerly Pitts), district leaders are moving forward with a
plan to make three additional schools of
innovation at Irving, Minnequa and Ben Franklin elementary schools.
Too early? Never mind. Charge
ahead. Who needs evidence! One wishes the
media could have asked tougher questions on why all of this made sense.
[The article continued:]
D60
is one of two districts … seeking permission to set up innovation zones. The proposals are expected to go before the
Colorado State Board of Education in the spring.
Gina Gallegos (director of
continuous improvement and innovation) said
by creating an innovation zone,
district officials are hoping they can leverage the zone for increased school
improvement.
“Just the term innovation, what does that
mean? It means thinking differently and that’s what we’re doing, we’re thinking
differently,” she said. “It can’t continue that our kids aren’t achieving at
the levels that they need to.”
Innovation = thinking differently? This is a turnaround strategy?
“D60 plans for new innovation schools”
KAOO
News 5 - Oct. 27, 2015
Pueblo
could be getting three new innovation schools next year. The recent success of D60's first innovation schools has inspired the
district to expand the program.
D60
has already created Pueblo Academy of Arts, Roncalli STEM Academy and Risley
International Academy of Innovation out of formerly failing schools. Now the
district is eyeing a bigger plan that will bring these and three other schools
together to help Pueblo kids succeed.
Irving,
Minnequa and Franklin Elementary Schools are next on the list to become
innovation schools in D60. Following the
improvements made at Roncalli, Risley and what used to be Pitts Middle
Schools, the district wants to address low test scores and student performance
with a different approach.
“More importantly, the student and staff culture at the three of the
innovation schools has improved beyond expectation,” notes Gina Gallegos, D60's executive director
of continuous improvement and innovation.
So
much for making sure the evidence supports the “reform”
The
following spring, as Pueblo proceeded with its plan to add three more
innovation schools, an update from Chalkbeat Colorado’s raised several red
flags. At least two state board members were
understandably wary. One might have read Nic Garcia’s “reality check” and
thought: Phew! I trust this will prevent others from imagining innovation is a wise
choice for our most troubled schools and districts.
EXCERPTS FROM “FAILURE TO LAUNCH”
Freeing failing schools
from bureaucracy hasn’t worked as hoped. So why is Colorado still doing it?
May 17, 2016
“I’m
very wary of using innovation as a turnaround strategy,” said Robin Lake, executive director of the
Center for Reinventing Public Education, a think tank at the University of
Washington. “If a school has gotten to the point of being in the lowest 5
percent, usually there is something going on that is very hard to repair.”
Because
so few chronically low-performing schools with innovation status have made
meaningful improvement, some education reform activists, state officials and
State Board of Education members are concerned
the state is about to do more harm than good.
“This is not OK,”
said Angelika Schroeder, a state board member and
Boulder Democrat who has raised
questions for several months now about innovation status as a turnaround
effort.
“Sometimes autonomy and a chance to innovate can be a good thing for a
school that needs a fresh start,” Lake said. “But the test should be, ‘Does the
school have a convincing plan that will result in something for kids very
soon?’ When you’re dealing with low-performing schools, that’s not the time you
just start pulling ideas out of a hat.”
State Board of
Education Chairman Steve Durham
said not all innovation plans are created equally. He said he might advocate
for a change in the law to allow the State Board more authority to reign in
poorly executed innovation plans. “I
think districts are looking at them as panacea and they certainly are not,” he
said.
Three schools — Roncalli and
Risley middle schools and the Pueblo Academy of Arts — already have innovation
status and are among those that have failed to improve.
August 2016 - The state released test results for
2015-16—including the results for all three innovation schools. Pueblo’s newly appointed superintendent,
Charlotte Macaluso, had previously been named head of the innovation zone—after
leading Risley during its first few years on innovation. According to Chalkbeat Colorado:
The
most recent testing data for Risley paints a dire picture. Only 60 of the
roughly 350 students at the school met or exceeded the state’s
expectations on the inaugural PARCC English exam in 2015. Only 26 students met
the state’s benchmarks on the math test the same year. The school has high
poverty rates, with 96 percent of students qualifying for government-subsidized
meals.
While an independent review found Macaluso
has boosted morale at the school, the
school’s state rating has not risen.
Three years ago, Risley won innovation
status, which grants it freedom from some state and local policies. That move to boost achievement, however,
has not proven successful.
Before being named interim superintendent,
Macaluso had been appointed executive director of the district’s new
innovation zone, which would bring together Risley and five other schools in an
even broader experiment. If approved by the State Board, the innovation zone would be the city’s most ambitious efforts yet to save its schools.
By
September 1, 2016, anyone could look at the PARCC
results at the three schools and compare 2015 and 2016 ELA and Math scores:
·
8th grade scores in
2016 were better than in 2015, highlighted by a nice jump at Pueblo Academy
from 18.8% proficient in English (2015) to 33% proficient (2016). But that was the only case where over 15% of
the 8th graders at any of three
schools were proficient, in either English or math.
·
English
scores for 6th and 7th grades declined at Pueblo Academy
of the Arts and at Risley International from 2015.
·
Math
scores dropped badly at these two schools for 6th grade and were
just slightly better for grade 7; still, less than 10% of the students were
proficient: 9.1% at Pueblo Academy of the Arts; 8.8% at Risley. At Roncalli, even
though all three grades “improved” their math results, less than 10% were
proficient for each grade. (http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2016/09/01/find-your-schools-2016-parcc-english-and-math-results/)
I realize the Pueblo School
Board, and then the Colorado State Board of Education, had more data than what
I present here as they considered doubling down on the innovation plan. But isn’t it true that press reports and
district claims overstated the “improvement” and “success” at the first three
schools?
(Two
weeks later)
September
15, 2016 - The Colorado State Board of Education approved of
Pueblo’s request to set up an innovation zone.
https://ww
w.cde.state.co.us/communications/20160915sbenewsrelease
Pueblo D60’s six-school Innovation Zone approved by
state
By Jon
Pompia, The Pueblo Chieftain, Sept.
16, 2016
Pueblo
City Schools (D60) saw its six-school Innovation Zone given the unanimous green
light by the Colorado Department of Education Thursday.
The Innovation
Zone plan, which will see Irving, Benjamin Franklin and Minnequa elementary
schools join Roncalli STEM Academy, Risley International School of Innovation
and Pueblo Academy of Arts, is viewed by D60 leaders as a necessary piece
toward increasing the district’s accountability standing before the state.
Interim
Superintendent Charlotte Macaluso, who led the presentation before state
education officials in Denver, touted the positive impact innovation eventually
will have throughout the district.
“Roncalli has made improvements in all
content areas in the last year, Pueblo Academy of Arts has more than tripled in
enrollment over the last three years and Risley International Academy of
Innovation was recently recognized as an International Baccalaureate World
School,” Macaluso said.
Upon the successful presentation of the
Innovation Zone plan before the state, D60 Board of Education President Phyllis Sanchez added, “We are excited
to have the support from the state as we implement our Innovation Zone, and we
were pleased to have a 7-0 unanimous vote in our favor.” http://newsok.com/article/feed/1076455
OK,
some good news at Roncalli. And I
realize that in January 2017, when CDE released its 2016 School Performance
Framework, it lifted the ranking for both Roncalli STEM and Pueblo Academy of
the Arts to Improvement—a big leap from being on Turnaround in 2014.
However,
note that in previous years the state’s School Performance Framework usually
put schools earning below 47% points on Priority Improvement. The new guideline lowers that bar to below
42% points. Roncalli earned 46.1% points in 2016 and Pueblo Academy, 43.3% points;
as a result, both gained a much higher ranking. Look again at the 2016 PARCC scores, above … These schools are now on Improvement? Really?
#2 - Aurora Public Schools
Summer 2015
to Winter 2016
By the summer of 2015, Aurora Public Schools was
developing a plan similar to that of Pueblo City Schools. A plan, from all I can gather, the central
office hoped would work, before finding out if the schools would come on board. In-depth planning at several of
the schools did not appear to begin until more than half-way through the fall
semester in 2015.
The APS applications in the
winter and spring of 2016 included this rationale—and tired verbiage. (Why, I wonder, do we think every idea is
better for having a “theory of change”?)
Across the nation, school district reform
strategies have taken various forms. A common theme among these myriad of
reform strategies is the need to identify a comprehensive approach that draws upon national best practices
while also addressing the local educational context. To serve the Aurora
community, Aurora Public Schools implemented a series of strategies identified
collectively as “CORE.” CORE stands for Communities Organized to Reach
Excellence.
ACTION Zones are one of these strategies,
and the goal is to create an innovative community of practice. The theory of change that guides this work
is that by focusing on implementing shared strategies in schools to address
their root causes while affording them additional autonomies over people, time,
money, and program, we can change the culture and capacity of the schools to
accelerate student achievement. Further, when leaders, teachers and learners
are connected to strong communities of practice, they are able to identify and
build upon successes to rapidly improve the entire school community.
May 2016 - The state board of education approved of Aurora’s
plan.
http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2016/05/11/state-board-approves-aurora-school-redesigns-but-aurora-central- isnt-off-the-hook/
http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2016/05/11/state-board-approves-aurora-school-redesigns-but-aurora-central- isnt-off-the-hook/
#3 - Adams 14 School District
Early in 2016, Adams 14’s Superintendent
Pat Sanchez appeared to be moving his district in a similar direction. A presentation was made to district employees
in February: “Innovation Update” (2/19/16)
- http://files.adams14.org/files/16/Resources/InnovationPlanning_Feb2016_PPT.pdf. Meetings of Adams 14’s board of education in
April, May, and June included more updates on an innovation plan. But then Sanchez was gone. In October, new
Superintendent Javier Abrego gave an update to the board on the innovation plan.
Later last fall, the state education department “rejected Adams County School District 14’s attempt to
avoid state sanctions for continued poor academic performance” (from article,
here). But innovation plans—according to
press reports—were still on.
Adams 14 will retain low rating, setting district up for state
sanctions
By Yesenia Robles, Chalkbeat Colorado, Dec. 13, 2016
The decision is a significant blow for Adams
14 because the district is one of five in the state that are facing state
sanctions for earning low ratings on the state’s evaluations for five years.
The state has a small number of options to deal with the low-performing
districts, including closing schools, merging districts or turning over
management to a third party.
Adams 14 officials have said they are working on drafting an innovation plan
requesting waivers and flexibilities from the state to try new approaches to
improving student achievement. If the state approves an innovation plan,
that could serve as it sanction—giving Adams 14 more time to show signs of
improvement before more drastic steps. (http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2016/12/13/adams-14-will-retain-low-rating-setting-the-district-up-for-state-sanctions/)
I attended the Adams 14
school board meeting on Feb. 14 and learned then that the district would only
seek innovation status for its high school.
The other schools,
Superintendent Abrego explained, would be part of a larger Turnaround Plan. A
few days later Dr. Abrego and
district leaders gave me reasons for the change in thinking. Maybe putting in place innovation for the district’s
major high school program will be challenge enough. But we must ask: can we find an equally
low-performing high school that has made dramatic improvement by gaining Innovation
Status? Surely not Aurora Central High….
Adams 14 will soon present its proposal to the
state board of education.
III. ESSA and evidence
I am sure the State Board, CDE, districts,
superintendents, state review panels, etc., are well aware that the new federal
law, ESSA, speaks time and again of the need for … evidence.
1.
“Making Evidence Locally”
Thomas J. Kane, Education Next, Spring 2017
“The term ‘evidence-based’
appears 63 times across the various titles and programs of ESSA….
However, the evidence requirements will amount to
nothing without state leadership. The law leaves it to the states to decide how
much they want to build an evidence base and nudge districts toward choosing
more effective strategies. No doubt,
many states will turn the ‘evidence-based’ requirement into an empty compliance
exercise, describing evidence-based requirements so broadly that districts will
find it easy to fit any intervention plan within them.”
2. “Website to Offer Assessments of Education Programs
Nationwide” (1/19/17)
Robert Slavin, Director of the Center for Research and Reform in
Education at Johns Hopkins University, called “the passage of the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 … ‘a
potentially monumental achievement’ for giving states the flexibility to use
research in guiding programmatic and policy decisions. ‘The only way education is going to get better is when pre-K-12 schools use evidence-based
programs that have shown to be effective in improving learning outcomes for
students.’” http://education.jhu.edu/inthemedia/newsroom/articles/01_18_17_Website%20to%20Offer%20Assessments%20of%20Education%20Programs%20Nationwide
3. “How to Find Evidence-Based Fixes for
Schools That Fall Behind” (9/28/16)
The
new federal flexibility in dealing with struggling schools comes with some
strings in picking approaches proven to have value
By Sarah D. Sparks, Education Week
“The Every Student Succeeds
Act gives states and districts significant flexibility in how they turn around
struggling schools, as long as the local
approaches are backed by evidence….
“In separate guidance, the
Education Department explained that districts and states should work to use the
most rigorous evidence available, with intervention studies that not only meet
high methodological quality, but also reflect similar students and school types
as those where the intervention would be used.”
4. From DRAFT created by CDE for the School
Improvement and Support Spoke Committee (8/16)
Summary of ESSA References for
School Support and Improvement (Sec. 1111. State Plans, as amended in Sec.
1005)
Improvement Plan - Schools develop and implement plan in
partnership with stakeholders (including school leaders, teachers and parents).
Plan must
(1) be informed by student performance for identified
disaggregated student group(s) against state‐ determined long‐term goals, and
(2) include evidence based
interventions. At CDE’s website on
ESSA: http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/essa_sisreferencessummary
5. Comparison
- NCLB and ESSA (written in 2015 after the passage of
ESSA)
ELEMENTARY
AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
Comparison of the No Child Left Behind Act to the
Every Student Succeeds Act – published by ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development)
School
Improvement - ESSA
Requires districts to develop evidence-based strategies for school improvement—in
partnership with parents and school staff—that include all accountability
indicators; requires districts to identify resource inequities. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/policy/ESEA_NCLB_ComparisonChart_2015.pdf
IV. Innovation as a sensible strategy for
turnarounds: two final thoughts
I have to ask: are the blind leading
the blind? ESSA speaks of three levels
of evidence—strong,
moderate, and promising. Who can argue in March of 2017 that using an Innovation
Zone to move a group of chronically low-performing schools, or giving
Innovation to a single school in need of turnaround, has provided strong, moderate, or even promising evidence of success? Why encourage any district or school to jump
on this bandwagon—if it is not showing real benefits?
Comment #1 here is downright
cynical. A work of fiction. But plausible?
Comment #2 introduces an entirely new
argument … so I merely toss it out. Does it ring true to anyone?
1. The skeptic’s
version of all this. Call it the unpublished
confessions of a superintendent:
OK, we admit it, we do not know how to turn
around low-performing schools. But
seeking Innovation Status will seem au courant, with all this buzz about
decentralizing and empowering individual schools. Heck, at least we don’t give up our control
the way we would if we allowed these schools to take the charter route. Denver Public Schools has gone crazy—50
charters!—that’s nuts. We don’t want our schools to have that much freedom. Control still matters, even if we’re not
allowed to say that out loud.
Listen, we know we’re in trouble, that damn
accountability clock is ticking and we don’t have a lot of good ideas. We’re not at all sure these schools, which
have floundered for years, will suddenly get their act together now that they
have this new freedom we say they’re getting.
But it’s a risk we’re willing to take.
And the state board seems to buy it.
Maybe if it gives us more time to figure this out, without the hammer
coming down on us ….
2. An admission from the district: we’re part of
the problem. But it is not enough.
Can we
acknowledge a certain irony when we see a district advocating for Innovation
Schools and Innovation Zones? Implicit
in deciding schools need more freedom from the barriers imposed by the
district itself—central office regulations, the contract with the teachers’
union, the inertia of a bureaucracy that impedes more than it supports dramatic
change—is to acknowledge: we get in the way.
The schools’ struggles are partly our fault. They should have
more control. For too long we tried to
assume we could “manage” dozens of buildings (Aurora: 60 schools; Pueblo
City: 30) from headquarters. We
can’t. Or, at least, we don’t seem to do it well.
A recent
study of the Obama Administration initiative, Investing in Innovation, noted
how ill-prepared many states and districts are “to develop and study their own
school improvement and other interventions.”
Patrick Lester, director of the Social Innovation Research Center,
commented: “For the most part, school districts were out of their depth” (See
Addendum C).
Districts
that come to see they are often “out of their depth,” that are humbled by their
failures, or their lack of capacity to turn around its schools, are taking a
step forward. Much healthier than the wounded
pride, or the defiance, that snaps: we know what’s best, leave us alone.
And the
schools themselves might agree that, yes, the darned district has been
in the way. They might rejoice in their
new freedom. But given their recent years of low performance, what fundamental change is
taking place in the schools that gives them the leadership, faculty, staff, and
resources capable of a major “restart” needed to bring about dramatic
improvement?
It has a touch of the dejected
doctor saying to the sick patient—Listen, I don’t seem to be helping. You’re
better off on your own. Good luck!
Few districts, and as best I
can tell, few states, know how to turn around their low-performing schools. We would do well to admit it. This may feel like an admission of
failure. Perhaps. One might also see it as the beginning of
wisdom.
Let’s not pretend we have
good answers to this dilemma. Granting our
most troubled districts and schools Innovation Status certainly isn’t one of
them.
Addendum A
“Greeley-Evans District 6 pursuing innovation plan for
two struggling schools” (Jan. 2017)
Greeley-Evans School
District 6 leaders on Monday pushed forward a plan to transform two struggling
schools in order to avoid state sanctions.
But the plans, to
transform the schools into "innovation schools," will require state
support in the face of different state recommendations for the two schools….
The state provides a
number of options for schools that have reached that threshold, including
school closure, private management and transforming the schools into charter
schools.
Outside consultants,
including those paid by the state, have recommended a mix of those options for
Franklin and Prairie Heights each of the past two years. What they haven't
recommended is transforming those schools into so-called "innovation
schools."
It's a legitimate
option, according to state rules. And it's precisely the option District 6
administrators would like to pursue, in spite of previous recommendations.
… the plan will be sent
to the Colorado Department of Education and District 6 officials will go before
the State Board of Education — perhaps as early as mid-March — to sell the
proposal. That part may prove more difficult….
(Superintendent Deirdre) Pilch told board
members she and district staff would have to be persuasive, particularly in two
areas: First, they'll have to persuade the board their model will change the
trajectory of the schools. Second, they'll
have to persuade the board the model is doable without waiving the district's
master contract with teachers.
It's an important
point, because most innovation schools — like charter schools — in Colorado
collect a variety of state waivers in order to operate what's supposed to be a
completely different educational model. Typically, a master contract waiver
means innovation schools get a bit more flexibility in setting salaries, as
well as hiring decisions and other items.
See also the earlier article, “Extensive’ changes coming for
poor-performing schools in Greeley-Evans School District 6,” from October
2016
Addendum B
CDE’s annual reports on Innovation Schools – Evidence of success?
CDE’s annual reports on Innovation Schools – Evidence of success?
What CDE’s annual reports have been saying for years
about the Academic Performance of Colorado Innovation Schools
The Colorado Department of
Education has produced six annual reports on Innovation Schools.
Annual Reports
I
include a few excerpts, mostly on the academic performance of the Innovation
schools.
The 2010, 2022, and 2012
annual reports were largely focused on the Denver innovation schools that were the
first to gain this status. The 2012
report offered no overview, just this on 11 schools:
How Have Innovation Schools Performed in
Student Achievement?
In math and
writing, eight innovation schools have seen some improvement in the number of
students scoring proficient or advanced compared to their scores prior to
implementing their innovations. However, in reading, five schools have yet to
show any increase and other schools have seen their scores across all subjects
decline each year since becoming an innovation school (e.g., MLK Early College,
Wasson HS). http://www.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/8T3N565D8F9D/$file/Annual%20Report%20on%20Status%20of%20Innovation%20Schools%202012.%20final.pdf
The 2013, 2015, 2016 annual reports each had a section (much like the 2013 version, here)
that asked about academic achievement.
Note how similar the results have proven to be.
“Section 6: Academic Performance of
Innovation Schools
“One of the purposes
of the Innovation Act was to improve educational performance. The Act sought to
hold public schools that receive greater autonomy under this article
accountable for student academic achievement ….” (Annual Report, 2013)
From annual reports on the Colorado Innovation Schools Act
March 2013*
|
March 2015*
|
March 2016*
|
Innovation schools are performing well below the state averages. In
part, this is because Innovation Status is being used as a turnaround
strategy In Denver, which has the most innovation schools of any direct so
far, so it will be interesting to see if these performance rates increase
over time, as the turnaround strategies are further implemented. However, when one looks at the innovation schools
that have been operating for 3 or more years, the proficiency rates have
remained largely the same or declined in most cases. (p. 15)
|
… In most cases, innovation schools are performing well below the
state averages. In part, this is because Innovation Status is being used as a
turnaround strategy, so it will be interesting to see if these performance
rates increase over time, as the turnaround strategies are further
implemented. However, when one looks
at the innovation schools that have been operating for 3 or more years, the
proficiency rates have remained largely the same or declined in most cases.
(p. 12)
|
These trends in scores point to the fact that each of the schools and
districts with Innovation status do not show a consistent pattern of
performance, meaning that there is no noticeable increase or decrease in
results as a result of these schools or zones having waivers under the
Innovation Act. Therefore, it is not
clear at this time whether designation as an innovation school or innovation
zone has any discernable impact on student academic performance. (p. 16)
|
What else did the most recent CDE report tell us?
The MOST UP-TO-DATE CDE report, from March 2016,
offers these specific findings that I assume the State Board of Education and
CDE–here in the spring of 2017—will review.
Can one find any evidence that
innovation appears a viable strategy to turnaround any low-performing school or
district? In the light of the
anticipated proposal from Adams City Schools, pay special attention to the
findings on achievement at the high schools.
From CDE’s Innovation Report – submitted to the Governor and to the
House and Senate Education Committees, March 2016
Academic Performance
Analysis of Mean Scale Score Percentiles for Elementary, Middle, and
High School
Reading
13 of the 18 innovation high schools … have a mean scale score of 10%
or lower, which means these schools are performing better than only 10% of
all high schools in the state in the area of Reading. Vista Ridge High School,
in Falcon 49 and Holyoke Sr. High School, in Holyoke School District are the
only innovation high schools showing a consistent increase in percentile scores
in Reading over the past 3 years. (p. 15)
Writing
Table 8 shows
percentile ranks for Colorado’s
innovation high schools. 12 of the
16 schools have had a percentile rank below the 10th percentile consistently
over the past 3 years. Vista Ridge High School in Falcon 49 was the only
high school to hit the 50th percentile meaning that it performs higher in the
area of Writing than 50% of the other high schools in the state. Holyoke Senior
High School, followed by Kit Carson Junior-Senior High School came in second
and third with percentile ranks below 40% in 2015. (p. 16)
Math
While 14 out of 28
innovation elementary schools reported in Appendix D, Table 9, have a
percentile rating below the 50th percentile, 8 of those 14 fall
below the 20th percentile and have for the past 3 years in math. 14 of the
innovation middle schools reported in Table 10, have had a percentile rank
below the 20th percentile over the past 3 years. 13 of the 18 innovation high schools … have had a percentile rank below
the 20th percentile over the past 3 years in the area of math. Vista Ridge
High School in Falcon 49 is the only innovation high school to earn a
percentile rank over 50% in the past two years. (p. 16)
The
text ended with this prophetic paragraph.
Part 4: Legislative Updates
Colorado has seen steady
growth in the number of innovation schools and innovation zones across the
state, especially in Denver Public Schools. Interest in innovation status
continues to grow across the state. The two newest areas of interest are rural
districts exploring possible benefits of innovation status, and districts considering the innovation design process
as a means of turnaround for schools approaching the end of the five year
accountability clock (as per SB 09-163). … As the Innovation Act embarks on
its 8th year of implementation, it would be helpful to investigate the
implementation strategies used in launching proposed innovations to determine
which strategies and innovations have been successful. https://www.cde.state.co.us/choice/2016-innovation-schools-annual-report
Addendum C
School
Innovation Study Flags Issues for Districts
Districts need help evaluating
their efforts
By Sarah D. Sparks, Education Week, January 24, 2017
The federal Investing in Innovation program
helped build evidence of the effectiveness of new interventions, but also
highlighted how much local education groups need support from regional and
national experts to build successful ones.
That is the takeaway from an evaluation of
the program, known as i3, that was released last week by the Social Innovation
Research Center, a nonprofit think tank supported by the national
venture-philanthropy fund New Profit.
The findings raise concerns about states'
and districts' ability to develop and study their own school improvement and
other interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act. The new federal law gives districts much more flexibility to
implement school improvement and other interventions but requires them to meet
evidence standards modeled after those of i3.
"With all these things happening under
ESSA with new evidence definitions, if you are going to just throw that out
there and hope the locals will do it with no assistance, you are
dreaming," said Patrick Lester, the director of the Social Innovation
Research Center. "These [i3 grantees] are in the top 3 percent of [i3]
applicants, they are supposed to be the cream of the crop, the elite of school
districts, ... and we see what the results look like: For the most part, school districts were out of their depth."
The Obama administration launched the $1.4
billion i3 program in 2009 … (and) is the only one of the massive federal competitive
grants to be codified in the Every Student Succeeds Act, as the revamped
Education Innovation and Research program. Both iterations of the grants are
intended to support the developing,
testing, and scaling-up of effective interventions for school improvement, early-childhood
education, dropout prevention, and other education areas.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/01/25/school-innovation-study-flags-issues-for-districts.html
[i]“For
every innovation application that is approved, that school will receive Innovation Status and be designated an Innovation School.” “Schools may also seek joint designation as an
Innovation School Zone which must be
made up of two or more schools within a district that share a common interest. (Bold mine) http://www.cde.state.co.us/choice/2016-innovation-schools-annual-report.
[ii] Innovation
School Application to CDE for Risley Middle - http://www.cde.state.co.us/choice/risleyinnovationplan.
[iii]
Innovation School Application to CDE for Pitts Middle - http://www.cde.state.co.us/choice/pittsinnovationplan.
