|
Submitted to: Governor
John Hickenlooper
House of
Representatives Education Committee
Senate
Education Committee
2) “After years
of stagnation, Colorado’s innovation schools see breakthrough in improvement,
data show,” by Nic Garcia, Chalkbeat
Colorado (Aug. 2, 2017).[ii]
|
I wrote AV#159 last spring, “When
on the clock – Innovation status to the rescue – on what basis?” to urge state
and district school board members to say—Hold
on! Look at the results! Does the Colorado Department of Education’s
2017 report on Innovation Schools, or an analysis of it last month by Chalkbeat Colorado, change my mind? Not
at all. Both reports, I believe, make a small
but critical error.
I am thrilled if AV#159 played any role in dissuading Adams 14 from
following in the footsteps of Aurora and Pueblo – two districts that had
decided by 2016 that innovation status would be a way to foster improvement in
some of their lowest performing schools. Based
on almost no evidence, as I showed - http://anotherviewphj.blogspot.com/.
On
the other hand, in April the state board approved of Greeley’s plan to provide
“new autonomy for two struggling Greeley middle
schools as part of its work this spring to turn around chronically low performing
schools.”[iii] And in May the board allowed Aurora Public School’s
plan for Aurora Central High–giving “the school more autonomy”[iv]—to
go forward. So the argument still needs
to be made.
The
flaw I see in CDE’s report pertains to efforts in (fortunately, just a
handful of) districts to employ innovation status as a means to dramatically improve
their struggling schools. More freedom
for schools doing fairly well – I’m
all for it. But to think that the
schools unable to bring about significant academic improvement will be better
off on innovation status—no; I still see no evidence to support this. And Chalkbeat’s summary—and the article’s
headline—seems misleading. A
“breakthrough”?
One-size
reform strategies (innovation schools, AP classes) forget this truth: context
matters
Another View has
consistently pushed for greater school autonomy. But context matters. As with
the points I have made about Advanced Placement courses, we cannot assume that
what proves beneficial to our more successful schools is well-suited to those
chronically under-performing. We have made so many errors in our turnaround
work; let’s not make this one too. What have
we learned about effective efforts? Such
schools need greater support, even intervention—not letting go. Hands off?
No, these schools need all-hands-on-deck.
The state, district, outside partners—anyone who can help.
CDE’s 50-page report itself offers
practically no judgments. It lists 86 schools, the year they gained innovation
status, and how their School Performance Ratings have changed, up or down, over
time. It helps us see the big picture, revealing
what has taken place in the schools in Colorado, mostly in Denver Public
Schools, that have been on innovation status for five or six years.
It may seem petty of me to “take
issue” with a solid report when practically all I object is to is one
concluding paragraph in its 14-page narrative—before the 36-page Appendix:
Colorado has seen rapid growth in
the number of innovation schools and innovation zones across the state. The
number of innovation schools has increased 39 percent since this report was
published last year.… More recently, the Department has seen significant interest
from districts and schools wanting to learn about the Innovation Act as they
consider innovation as a means of turnaround for schools approaching the end of
the five-year accountability clock (as per SB 09-163). (Bold mine)
And yet the report provides no proof that greater autonomy has been a
way to improve low-performing schools.
I believe it is a mistake not to say that to policymakers. Just as it would have been a mistake to let Adams
14 stumble down this dead-end road. My
own Addenda will show that the far majority of innovation schools that have moved forward well were rated on Improvement and Performance when they received innovation status—not schools on Turnaround and Priority Improvement. (And
really, does this surprise anyone? Isn’t
this just common sense?)
**
To substantiate my argument in AV#159,
I quoted from Chalkbeat’s May 2016
article—"Freeing failing schools from bureaucracy hasn’t worked as hoped. So why
is Colorado still doing it?” Last month, Chalkbeat began its analysis of CDE’s Innovation study by referring
to that 2016 article:
A year ago, as the State Board of Education began to consider fixes for Colorado’s lowest-performing schools, there was scant evidence that giving
schools freedom from some state laws and local policies would significantly
boost learning.
But Chalkbeat has now come up with a more
positive outlook. In August it reported:
Ten schools with innovation status improved enough between 2014 and 2016
to avoid state-ordered improvements. The near quadrupling of schools that
improved … could bolster backers of giving schools greater decision-making
authority….
A
paragraph that follows, however, undermines this “good news”:
Some
Colorado schools with innovation status continue to struggle. Seven innovation
schools continue to rank among the lowest-performing in the state after
multiple years of increased autonomy. And four innovation schools that had one
of the state’s highest ratings in 2014 dropped to one of the lowest in 2016.(ii)
My Addenda presents key points from CDE’s report. It shows that, of
our 86 Innovation Schools, every one of them not in Aurora, DPS, and
Pueblo were already seen as relatively healthy schools when they sought and
gained Innovation status (Addendum
A-page 3). All
but two were rated on Performance
(highest rating) that year; the other two were rated on Improvement (second highest rating). We cannot look to these other 10 districts and
26 schools for success or failure regarding the use of Innovation Status to
help bring about improvement in low-performing schools
What about the ten schools Chalkbeat saw emerge from being “on
the clock”? (See Addendum B-page 3).
As Chalkbeat noted, most of those–eight,
to be exact–are in Denver (NOTE: 8 out of 47 innovation schools in DPS). Addendum C-“A far more muddled picture”-page 4, looks at 21 other DPS schools.
The other two schools on Chalkbeat’s list are in Pueblo 60. AV#159 questioned the so-called
improvement at Pueblo’s three middle schools on innovation, based on 2016 PARCC
scores. Here we go again: look at 2017
PARRC results all three (Addendum D-Pueblo-page 6). Too grim for anyone to call this a success. As for Aurora Public Schools? Too soon for any significant conclusions, but
a quick look at PARCC results at three schools on innovation offers more
red flags—and the same warning: you are
headed in the wrong direction! (Addendum
E-Aurora-page 9).
I am sure we all care about addressing the persistent challenges of our
lowest-performing schools. But
innovation status is no answer. We know better. To be more precise - by now, we should know better.
Addendum A
In most districts (10
of 13), schools were not low-performing
when granted Innovation status
All
but two schools listed below were rated on Performance
(highest rating) the year they received Innovation status. The other two were rated on Improvement (the second highest rating).
# of Innovation schools
|
Granted
Innovation status when rated on Performance
|
Granted
Innovation status when rated on Improvement
|
|
Burlington
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
Delta
|
1
|
ALL
|
|
Greeley-Evans
|
1
|
ALL
|
|
Falcon
|
11
|
ALL
|
|
Holyoke
|
3
|
ALL
|
|
Kit
Carson
|
2
|
ALL
|
|
Mancos
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
Montrose
County
|
1
|
ALL
|
|
Widefield
|
1
|
ALL
|
|
TOTAL
|
26
|
24
|
2
|
Westminster
|
1
|
Granted Innovation Status before it
opened
|
|
Addendum B
Chalkbeat’s “10 schools” now rated higher - on
Improvement or Performance
Only three districts have tried innovation status as a strategy for
low-performing schools. Here are the 10 schools from two* of those
districts (DPS and Pueblo 60) referred to in Chalkbeat’s analysis. Half of them received innovation status when
they were rated on Turnaround or Priority Improvement. All 10 are now on Improvement or Performance.
From
CDE’s 2017 Innovation Schools Annual
Report:
School District/ School
|
Year it
received Innovation Status & Rating - or
Opened
with IS
|
After
Innovation Status
|
2016
Rating
|
Total %
pts earned -2016
-
AECs
have AEC pts earned**
|
Denver
|
||||
Centennial
|
2012
TURNAROUND
|
2013
& 2014
TURNAROUND
|
Improvement
|
59.5
|
Collegiate Prep
|
Opened with IS
|
2012-Performance;
2013 Improvement
2014 –
Rating dropped to Priority Improvement
|
Performance
|
53.9
|
Compassion Road
|
Opened with IS
|
2014 –
TURNAROUND
|
AEC: Improvement
Plan
|
50
|
DCIS at Ford
|
Opened
with IS
|
2013
& 2014 - Priority Improvement
|
Improvement
|
51.8
|
Denver Center for 21st Century
Learning at Wyman
|
Opened
with IS
|
2012-2014:
AEC: TURNAROUND
|
AEC: Improvement Plan
|
40.46
|
Denver Montessori
|
Opened
with IS
|
2014 - TURNAROUND
|
Performance
|
66.2
|
Summit
|
2011
AEC: TURNAROUND
|
2012-2014
–
AEC: TURNAROUND
|
AEC: Improvement Plan
|
50.77
|
Trevista K-8
|
2012
Priority
Improvement
|
2013 - Declined
to TURNAROUND;
2014 on
Priority Improvement
|
Performance
|
57.3
|
Pueblo
|
||||
Pueblo Arts
|
2013 - Improvement
|
2014 -declined
to TURNAROUND
|
Improvement
Plan
|
43.1*
|
Roncalli
|
2013 TURNAROUND
|
2014 - TURNAROUND
|
Improvement
Plan: Low Participation
|
46.1*
|
*Aurora Public Schools is the third district
– see Addendum E.
**AEC – Alternative Education Campus
As I review those
ratings, I would say well done to just
three schools - Centennial, Denver
Montessori, and Trevista. To Collegiate,
good to see you get back on track after a poor performance in 2014. To the others … do we really see much to
celebrate? [Preliminary 2017 SPF ratings are
lower at three of these four schools:
Centennial, Denver Montessori, and Collegiate.[vi]]
CDE’s Innovation
Schools Annual Report shows one other DPS school, Goldrick Elementary, climbed
out of an SPF rating of Turnaround or Priority
Improvement in 2014, up to Improvement
or Performance in 2016. But it was not on innovation status until
2016.
Addendum C – A far more muddled picture
21 other Denver Public Schools on Innovation
Ten schools (or is it really only three?) hardly tells us a lot. Let’s take a broader look.
Not one of these 21
DPS schools went from one of the two lower ratings - Turnaround/ Priority Improvement - to Improvement/Performance between 2014 and 2016
From CDE’s 2017 Innovation Schools Annual Report
(with my changes
based on finding errors in the report—i.e. there
was no SPF for 2015)
Year
granted Innovation designation
|
SPF
rating after being on Innovation
|
SPF
Rating 2016
|
|
Ashley
Elementary
|
Innovation
status in 2013 when on Priority
Improvement
|
Rating
lifted to Improvement in 2014
|
Rating
dropped to
Priority Improvement
|
Denver
Green School
|
Opened
on Innovation status
|
On Priority Improvement in 2011, then on
Performance next three years
|
Performance
|
Excel
Academy
|
Opened
on Innovation status
|
First
year on
AEC: Turnaround Plan
|
AEC: Turnaround Plan
|
Godsman
Elementary
|
Innovation
status in 2011 when on Priority
Improvement
|
On Performance next three years, 2012-14
|
Rating
dropped to Improvement
|
Grant
Beacon
|
Innovation
status in 2012 when on Improvement
|
Has been
on Performance all three years
since:
2013,
2014, 2016
|
|
Green
Valley Elementary
|
Innovation
status in 2011 when on Improvement
|
Spent
next four years on Performance
|
Rating dropped
to Improvement
|
High
Tech Early College
|
Opened
on Innovation status
|
Spent
next two years on Performance
|
Last two
years rating dropped to Improvement
|
Isabella
Bird Community School
|
Opened
in 2013 – granted Innovation status
|
2014
Performance
|
Rating
dropped to Improvement
|
Joe
Shoemaker
|
Opened in
2015 –
granted Innovation
status
|
DDP -
SPF rating */
Turnaround
|
|
Legacy Options
|
Opened
in 2015 – granted Innovation status
|
DDP -
SPF rating */
Turnaround
|
|
McGlone
|
Innovation
status in 2011 when on Improvement
|
Has been
on Performance all four years
since – 2012-2016
|
|
Manual
High School
|
Granted Innovation
status in 2009
|
2010-12
on Improvement
2013-14 rating
dropped to Turnaround
|
DDP-SPF
rating */
Priority Improvement
|
Noel
Community Arts School
|
Opened
on Innovation status
|
On Improvement first two years – 2012
and 2013;
Rating
dropped to Turnaround in 2014
|
Priority Improvement
|
Oakland
Elementary
|
Opened
in 2013 – granted Innovation status
|
2014
Turnaround
|
Turnaround
|
Place
Bridge
|
Granted
Innovation status in 2015 after 3 yrs on Performance
2012-14
|
Performance
|
|
Schmitt
Elementary
|
Granted
Innovation status in 2016
|
2014
Turnaround
|
Priority Improvement
|
Swigert
International School
|
Opened
on Innovation status
|
Has been
on Performance all four years –
2012-2016
|
|
Valdez
Elementary
|
Granted
Innovation status in 2010 when on Improvement
|
2011-13
on Performance;
2014
rated dropped to Improvement
|
Rating back
up to Performance
|
Valverde
Elementary
|
Granted
Innovation status in 2016
|
Turnaround
|
|
West
Early College
|
Opened
on Innovation status
|
Has been
on Turnaround all three years –
2013,2014, 2016
|
|
Whittier
K-8 School
|
Granted
Innovation status in 2010
when on Improvement
|
Next two
years on Performance – 2011, 2012;
Rating dropped
to Improvement 2013, 2014
|
Rating back
up to Performance
|
*“DDP - SPF
rating decreased due to participation on state assessments” (CDE’s Innovation Report).
CDE gives a shout out
to McGlone and Grant Beacon – because…?
CDE’s report goes out of its way to be
neutral on whether Innovation Status is good or bad. I find just one sentence in CDE’s that
reflects a positive comment on the academic learning at two of the 86
schools. They are a strange choice.
Grant Beacon Middle School and McGlone Elementary School, both from
Denver Public Schools, are two examples of schools who pursued innovation as a
means of being able to better meet the needs of their students. Both schools
have made significant improvements over the last 5-6 years, as reflected by
their School Performance Framework, since converting to innovation schools.[vii]
But did they really make
“significant improvement … since converting to innovation schools”? Grant Beacon became an Innovation school in
2012 when it was rated on Improvement (2012)
– the state’s second highest rating. Ever since then, for three straight years,
it has been on Performance (highest
rating). McGlone was also rated on Improvement when it became an Innovation
School (2011), and it has been on Performance
ever since - for four straight years – 2012-2016. [Preliminary 2017 ratings show McGlone’s rating has dropped to Improvement.]
Again, I see two schools that
were doing fairly well when they became Innovation schools. Perhaps the waivers granted through the innovation
status helped them show even stronger results. But they cannot be used as examples of what
will help schools on Turnaround and Priority Improvement.
Addendum D – Pueblo
Three turnaround schools on the right track?
This passage from AV#159 (March 2017)
indicates my doubts about the “improvement” in Pueblo’s three Innovation
Schools, looking at the 2016 PARCC scores. Before the Colorado State Board of
Education approved of Pueblo’s request to set up an innovation zone, “one could look at
the PARCC results at the three schools (already on Innovation) 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 …. 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/)
“Isn’t it
true,” I wrote
last March, “that press reports and
district claims overstated the ‘improvement’ and ‘success’ at the first three
schools?” I quoted Interim
Superintendent Charlotte Macaluso’s positive spin on the 2016 results for these
three schools, but I was not convinced:
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. [See] The PARCC scores above …
and the schools are now on Improvement? Really?
**
For its dubiously titled article in August,
“Colorado’s
innovation schools see breakthrough in improvement,” Chalkbeat spoke
with Roncalli’s principal: (bold mine)
Marci Imes, principal of Roncalli STEM
Academy, a Pueblo middle school that was one of the innovation
schools that improved enough to get off the watch list, said time, focus and years of hard work were
necessary to raise her school’s quality rating.
Again I cannot see why Roncalli
came “off the watch list” in 2016. Its
overall declining PARCC scores in 2017 - see below – add more reason to
question its higher quality rating. [Preliminary 2017 SPF ratings show that all three of Pueblo’s innovation middle schools—Roncalli, Risley,
and Pueblo Academy of the Arts—have been
rated on Turnaround.]
As Pueblo 60 was the first to
make the baffling decision to grant more freedom to three of their chronically
low-performing schools, we now have considerable data to see how it is
going—including three years of PARCC scores.
Can anyone look at the growth and achievement results and argue that
being an innovation school has proved beneficial?
GROWTH
Not one of Pueblo’s first three
innovation schools demonstrated growth of even 40% on either subject.
Chalkbeat’s data base for 2017 Growth Scores
includes this explanation: “Student growth measures how much groups of students
learn during a year compared to students who scored similarly to them on
previous state tests. The state’s average is also 50, which represents about a
year’s worth of learning.”
2017 – PARCC – school’s growth percentile scores
School
|
ELA
|
MATH
|
Roncalli STEM Academy
|
37
|
30
|
Pueblo Academy of the Arts
|
34
|
31
|
Risley International Academy
|
33
|
29.5
|
ACHIEVEMENT
D indicates a decline from 2016 for that grade in that assessment.
Between 2016 and 2017 scores declined in
most categories at Roncalli STEM Academy and Pueblo Academy of the Arts.
Risley’s scores remain among the lowest in the state for any middle school.
Roncalli STEM Academy
Grade
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
|
6
|
7.9
|
13.2
|
8.9
|
D
|
7
|
9.9
|
15.3
|
11.2
|
D
|
8
|
9.2*
|
15
|
15.2
|
MATH – %
meeting expectations
Grade
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
COMMENT
|
|
6
|
5.6
|
7.9
|
6.3
|
D
|
2015-2017
– less than 10% meet expectations in all grades
|
7
|
3.8*
|
9.8
|
NA**
|
||
8
|
3.8
|
5.3
|
4.1
|
D
|
**NA – fewer than 16 students
Pueblo Academy of the
Arts
Grade
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
COMMENT
|
|
6
|
19.4
|
17.2
|
19.5
|
||
7
|
32.8
|
28.5
|
13.1
|
D
|
Declined
19.7 % pts since 2015
|
8
|
18.8
|
33.0
|
26.9
|
D
|
MATH – % meeting expectations
Grade
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
COMMENT
|
|
6
|
12.5
|
7.4
|
10.7
|
2016 & 2017 – less than 11% meet expectations in
all grades
|
|
7
|
7.3
|
9.1
|
4.7
|
D
|
|
8
|
3.8
|
10.3
|
9.0
|
D
|
Risley International
Academy
ELA – % meeting expectations
Grade
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
COMMENT
|
|
6
|
15.2
|
7
|
13.2
|
2017
lower than 2015
|
|
7
|
31.2
|
18.9
|
9.7
|
D
|
Declined
21.5 % pts since 2015
|
8
|
10.1
|
14.8
|
15.5
|
MATH – % meeting expectations
Grade
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
COMMENT
|
|
6
|
15.6
|
4.3
|
7.0
|
2016
& 2017 – less than 9% meet expectations in all grades
|
|
7
|
8.3
|
8.8
|
NA*
|
||
8
|
7.9
|
6.3
|
6.4
|
*NA – fewer
than 16 students
**
And now a quick check on Pueblo 60’s newest schools in the
district’s Innovation Zone, after year one.
2017 – PARCC – school’s growth percentile scores[viii]
School
|
ELA
|
MATH
|
Benjamin Franklin Elementary
|
31.5
|
41.5
|
Irving Elementary
|
51
|
48
|
Minnequa Elementary
|
36
|
28
|
At the three schools, 3rd
grade PARCC scores improved. However, most 4th and 5th
grade PARCC scores were lower in 2017 than in 2016. [Preliminary 2017 SPF ratings show the strong rating
for Irving in 2016 continued in 2017 – on Performance;
Benjamin Franklin’s rating dropped to Improvement;
Minnequa’s rating continued on Turnaround.]
Addendum E – Aurora
Boston K-8, Crawford, & Paris added
to innovation zone: “major win for Munn’s reform agenda”
Over a year ago, Aurora followed the
course Pueblo 60 had taken:
AURORA — Three of Aurora’s most at-risk schools are closer to dramatic
overhauls after the school board Tuesday approved plans to set the schools free
of some district and state rules.
The
schools will have greater autonomy over their budgets, hiring and curriculum if
the State Board of Education signs off on the plans later this spring — the
final step in a year-long process.
The
unanimous vote to provide some of its school greater flexibility by the Aurora
Public Schools Board of Education is a major shift for the state’s fifth
largest school district, which has trailed the state in student achievement
scores on annual standardized tests and graduation rates.
The
board approved the plans without discussion. (Chalkbeat Colorado, March
2016)[ix]
In May of 2016 the
state board told APS - OK, fine, go ahead.
Chalkbeat called it “a major
win for Aurora Superintendent Rico Munn’s school reform agenda.[x]
PARCC results
In
its story last month on 2017 PARCC results for APS, Chalkbeat Colorado stated:
Aurora’s five
innovation zone schools, the biggest reform superintendent Munn has rolled out,
saw mixed results. Last fall, the five schools each started working on plans
the district and state approved giving them flexibility from some district or
union rules and state laws.
Munn told Chalkbeat the “schools had
only started working on the changes in their innovation plans months before
students took these tests and said district officials aren’t yet attributing
the results, negative or positive, to the reforms.”[xi]
In its overview on
the state results, Chalkbeat also
noted that “among the state’s ten largest school districts, Aurora continued to
post the lowest scores. For example, only
25 percent of fourth graders in the 41,000-student district met the state’s
expectations on the English test.[xii]
(Bold mine)
OK,
too early for cause and effect. Those of
us who question this strategy for our lowest-performing schools would simply make
three points to the State Board of Education and the Aurora School Board, for grades 3-5 at the three innovation schools serving those grades, Boston K-8, Crawford, and Paris:
1)
“Only 25% of 4th graders” for the entire
district – that is almost good news compared to the scores at the three schools.
Fourth grade on English Language Arts – largely unchanged from the year
before:
Crawford Elementary
– 13.7% meeting expectations
Paris Elementary
- 11.3% meeting expectations
Boston K-8: too few students to
include
2)
Overall at the three schools,
for both ELA and Math results in 2017, we do not see one grade or subject
matter where 17% of the students were meeting expectations.
3)
Even more troubling: in Math,
the growth scores (MPG) were below 40% for all three schools.[xiii]
Data which cries out for help. Schools, teachers
-- and students too, if they could understand all this–might be pleading as
well. Help. Support. Intervention.
And not the fool’s errand of more autonomy.
[iv] https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2017/05/10/state-board-finalizes-path-for-aurora-central-hope-online-schools/ - “The proposal for
Aurora Central is to continue following a plan to give
the school more autonomy while getting help from an outside company.”
[vi] http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworkresults - In releasing this file last week, CDE reminded us
that, as “these data are PRELIMINARY and not final, please use it with
caution.” I include several findings where, though not final, the 2017 ratings
could, in the end, support my argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment