Introduction (emailed to those to whom I send my newsletter)
“Boards are usually too busied with items of demonstrably less import
while they avoid
their primary obligation to enunciate organizational ends.” John Carver
This is year 20 of Another View, so of course I repeat myself. In writing here about the Aurora school board not seeing student achievement data on one of its major “reform initiatives,” I recall Another View #7 (Feb. 1999). I addressed two pages to new school board members, with several quotes from Richard Carlson’s Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff. I echo that theme here, while pleading that a school board, if it is to be effective, instead “sweat the big stuff” – like, student achievement.
I had DPS and Jeffco school boards in mind then. As with APS now, I can appreciate how much time and work go into being a conscientious board member, when you are asked to digest so much information. When to say—this is sort of interesting, but not critical? When to challenge what you hear? When to say—we are a board interested in results, not in the process, thank you very much—so please don’t overwhelm us with all these strategies and initiatives being prioritized and utilized. The means, that’s your business; we care most about the ends. First and foremost, tell us whether students are learning more – or not – due to these efforts.
Much of this relates to a central point in David Osborne’s book, Reinventing America’s Schools, with its focus on how Denver, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C., are demonstrating a new way school boards and large districts can see their role—to use Osborne’s central metaphor–"to steer the boat, but not to row.” Big districts function better, he argues, when they accept that the less involved they are in the day-to-day process inside schools, the better. If the APS board could embrace this idea, it might tell district staff: we really don’t need you, or want you, to spend so much time making these pretty slide presentations for each meeting, professional and reassuring and packed with photos of cute, handsome, confident-looking students smiling back at the camera. It is not a good use of your time, or ours.
Instead, tell us what is most essential. Tell us how students are performing.
When they see that data, a board less overwhelmed by TMI might say—now we can do our job; now we can ask meaningful questions. Like, given these results for the “ACTION Zone” in Aurora, why does the district plan to let it continue another year? Why, in fact, let it continue another day?
APS continues to prove that innovation status is not a turnaround strategy
Yes, I repeat myself. Consider this part 3 of a series challenging why Aurora, Pueblo, or any Colorado school district turns to innovation status as a turnaround strategy.
1) AV #159 - When on the clock – Innovation status to the rescue – on what basis? (March 21, 2017)
One quote: “I’m very wary of using innovation as a turnaround strategy,” said Robin Lake, executive director of the Center for Reinventing Public Education… “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.”
2) AV #167 - Even LESS evidence now to grant innovation status to low-performing schools (Sept. 6, 2017)
I wrote that the Colorado Department of Education’s 50-page report on innovation schools “provides no proof that greater autonomy has been a way to improve low-performing schools.”
This spring I will write about priority #3 for gubernatorial candidates: our lowest-performing schools (roughly 200 schools) and turnaround efforts. This newsletter presents one example of how we continue to mishandle a problem that ought to be of major concern to anyone who would lead our state. One of several education priorities for Colorado on which Gov. Hickenlooper has been so silent.
**
APS school board still not being told
student achievement data in ACTION Zone
In March 2016 the then-Aurora school board approved of the Action Zone
plan. The new board does not own this
mistake. It has the freedom to say: it’s
not working (see p. 3), so let’s go back to the drawing board.
Last October, in writing an open letter to those running for
the Board of Education for Aurora Public Schools, I pointed out that at the
Sept. 19, 2017, meeting of the APS board, district staff presented a 2017
ACTION Zone Update on five schools, a report consisting of over 20 slides, without
“one word about achievement results at the five schools.” Growth scores, yes, but no achievement data. I wrote:
Superintendent Rico Munn’s summary
of the meetings spoke of “a presentation about the program implementation and
assessment data from the five schools that are part of the Zone” (http://aurorak12.org/2017/09/22/supt-message-board-meeting-update-9192017/). I
see no “assessment data,” nothing to indicate this effort has produced
significant improvement in achievement…. The new board should insist on more useful
information. (Open Letter to APS board candidates, 10/10/17.)
My addendum in that letter gave 2017
PARCC results at the five schools, “assessment data” that Munn’s staff did not present to the board. For example: in most grades, sadly, less
than 12% proficient in English.
I cautioned any new board member
to “be skeptical of overstatement and spin and lack of detail about student
performance when district personnel provide updates,” adding a little history
for context:
My hope is that you will understand
the district and staff, as conscientious as they might be in presenting
their reports, do not always convey the full story. It may not be deliberate; I simply say,
having visited at least two board meetings each year since 2012, the tendency
is to stress the positive…. It will be your responsibility, in my view—perhaps
your most difficult task—to ask the hard questions to ensure that you and your
fellow board members, and the public, obtain essential information.
Four new board members were
elected Nov. 7 and were sworn in soon after.
On January 9, 2018, the new APS board received a 14-page update on the
five schools: “District Program Monitoring Report.”
From the agenda (of the Jan. 9 board meeting):
Estimated Time: 6:52-6:57
The board will
receive information on the Aurora Community-based Transformation, Innovation
and Opportunity Network Zone (ACTION Zone).
As in September, NOT ONE SENTENCE
ABOUT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT RESULTS in 2016-17.
See for yourself. Growth scores,
that’s it, stressing the positive: a graph showing 6 arrows pointing up, 4
down. https://www.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/AUNPYE66DC56/$file/Zone%20Update_Follow%20up_District%20Program%20Monitoring%20Report%20January%202018_Final.pdf
From the minutes of
that meeting, approved two weeks later:
3. BOARD OF EDUCATION REPORT
DMR: Aurora Community-based Transformation, Innovation and
Opportunity Network Zone (ACTION Zone)
Superintendent Munn advised over the last year, for purposes of
the DMR, the board has requested to submit [sic] information in writing without a
presentation. There is an opportunity for the board to ask questions
regarding the reports, otherwise it stands as submitted. Director Ivey asked
the board if they had any questions, no questions were presented (https://www.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/Public).
TMI – Too little on what is most important
APS board meetings – Feb 6: one 29-page report (Lynn Knoll);
one 52-slide report (Vanguard) - with 8 Appendices (over 100 pp.)
Feb 20: 3 presentations, each over 20 slides
|
I
assume my warning went unheard. APS
board members have so much – too much? (see box) – to read. But now that this has happened a second time,
I present the best one pager I can (next page). I hope the new board pays
attention before it learns too late, as with previous APS boards, of the grim
news on student achievement—in this case, in most of the five schools in the
Action Zone. This data—absent from the 20
slides (September) and the 14-page report (January)—should raise a red flag. In their fall campaign several new candidates
spoke of the importance of asking hard questions. Here is a case where questions must be asked of the superintendent and the district, before any more
time is lost, and resources wasted, on a failed initiative.
14
pages. Too much? Yes, when of so little value. After “Background” and “Program
Status,” this:
·
4 pages on the budget
·
2 pages on demographic data
·
1 page on enrollment
·
2 pages on School Performance Framework
targets and results. (My version of the
SPFs, p. 4, provides a new board more context—previous years—to show how
chronic the low performance has been.)
- 1 page on “Individual School Progress,”
providing growth scores (a repeat of
what the previous board saw on 9/19), but no data on the achievement results on
PARCC or PSAT assessments to gauge student performance for 2016-17. A good board understands what growth scores
do not reveal.
Oh yes, one single sentence on achievement – referring not
to 2016-17 results, but to the first half of 2017-18, at one school: “Paris
Elementary: Interim reading data shows an increase in the number of students
reading proficient compared to this time last year.”
Section
3 (2 pages) is headed: “Progress.” Under “Innovation Zone Strategic Priorities,”
we read: “Outlined below is the work and results that were achieved in the ACTION Zone during the 16-17 school
year…”
“Progress” – on steps taken, but not for students.
“Results.” Really? Enough gobbledygook
to fill ….
·
“A Financial Flexibility Framework
was developed and implemented which allowed ACTION Zone schools to use
strategic thinking and redesign to have more school-based control and autonomy
over how funds are used….”
·
“The Zone enhanced support for teachers
and leaders through re-envisioning the calendar and creation of Zone-wise professional
development opportunities…”
·
“Creation of Director of Personnel
and Talent Acquisition to support investment in school staff in Zone schools
and Director of Instruction and Leadership Development, to support leadership
development for schools….”
Three times on those two pages we read of the “creation of
two data analysis protocols,”
“student focused data analysis,” and
“Instructional Leadership Development sessions …with a focus on Instructional
rigor, data-driven instruction….” (Bold mine.) What’s good for teachers,
apparently, is not appropriate for the board.
Reports like this show how board members are given plenty of information
to look at, but it is a time-consuming distraction. Not the essential data analysis: how students perform.
To the APS board: here’s a one-page summary of data taken
from the Colorado Department of Education. Any errors are mine; I trust you will request staff to provide a corrected version. Together, with the page that follows, another one-page
overview of the School Performance Framework at these give schools since 2014,
the results lead to my recommendation that three of the schools lose their
innovation status - why wait? Then step back and develop a much stronger plan for these five schools.
PARCC Assessments (2016 and 2017) & PSAT (2017) – Mean
Scale Scores
State’s
School Rating – 3 categories: DNM = Does Not Meet
App = Approaching Meets
*"Academic Achievement Indicator reflects achievement as
measured by the mean scale score on Colorado's standardized assessments. The
presented targets for the Achievement Indicators have been established
utilizing baseline year data." (Colorado Department of Education)
CDE explains to me that
50th percentile indicates ‘meets expectations’ on the
school/district performance frameworks.
**DNM – Does Not Meet
expectations.
Colorado’s School
Performance Framework - 2014, 2016, 2017 (there was no rating in 2015):
July 2013
Rico Munn begins serving as APS superintendent; ACHS, Boston K-8, Crawford, & Paris are already on the Accountability
Clock
|
2014
– Rating & Total % pts earned
Year
on Accountability Clock
|
Rating
when APS approved of Innovation Status/Zone for these 5 schools in March 2016
|
2016
– Rating & Total % pts earned
|
2017
– Rating & Total % pts earned
Year
on Accountability Clock
|
Aurora Central High
|
Priority Improvement 44.5%
ENTERING YR 5 on PI or TURNAROUND
|
See 2014
|
Turnaround Plan
31.8%
|
Priority
Improvement
34.8%
ENTERING YR 7 on PI or TURNAROUND
|
Aurora West-MH
|
Performance
63.4%
|
See 2014
|
Performance
61%
(BUT academic achievement Does Not Meet)
|
Performance
52.7%
(BUT academic
achievement Does Not Meet. 9.8/30*)
|
Boston K-8
|
Priority Improvement
46.1%
ENTERING YR 4 on PI or TURNAROUND
|
See 2014
|
Performance
57.1%
(BUT academic achievement Does Not
Meet)
|
Performance
53.1%
(BUT academic
achievement Does Not Meet. 11.8/40*)
|
Crawford Elementary
(On Priority Improvement 2011, 2012, 2013)
|
Improvement
57%
|
See 2014
|
Improvement
45.9%
|
Priority Improvement
39.4%
ENTERING YR 1 on PI or TURNAROUND
|
Paris Elementary
|
Priority Improvement
33%
ENTERING YR 3 on PI or TURNAROUND
|
See 2014
|
Priority Improvement
37.7%
|
Priority
Improvement
40%
ENTERING YR 5 on PI or TURNAROUND
|
*Academic
achievement – Weighted points earned/Weighted points eligible.
Page 14 of the APS report
ended this way: “The next update on the ACTION ZONE will be scheduled for the
2018-19 school year when the board calendar is developed, with an anticipated
update in Jan. 2019.”
After
reviewing these two pages, will the new APS board wait that long? The need for change is urgent. If the innovation status is not helping the lowest performing schools in
the ACTION Zone, isn't it time to change course? I hope the board and district will consider taking
these initial steps:
1. ACHS
– seven straight years on PI/Turnaround! Little improvement. Take off innovation status.
2. Aurora
West – Performance all 3 years. Weak middle
school results. More support needed.
3. Boston
K-8 – Has improved since 2014. Performance. Weak elem. results. More support needed.
4. Crawford
Elem. – huge decline in rating since 2014. Now on PI. Take off innovation status.
5. Paris
Elem. – year 5! Little improvement. Take off innovation status.
