Tuesday, April 3, 2018

AV #178 - The potential for networks – when their network actually means something



The Luminary Learning Network is not the best model to foster collaboration among schools

Introduction

Having criticized the (mis-)use of “innovation school” status to bring about dramatic change in low-performing schools (my focus has been Aurora Public Schools and Pueblo 60),[i] I am puzzled at the buzz about the new innovation zone in Denver.  In David Osborne’s Reinventing America’s Schools (2017), as part of his three chapters on Denver Public Schools, he devotes two pages to “Why Innovation Schools Have Not Excelled.”  In spite of this, he then introduces the reader to Denver’s Luminary Learning Network (LLN)—as if it might produce better results. 

A 28-page “CASE STUDY: Disruptive Innovation in an Urban School District: Denver’s Luminary Learning Network” by Alan Gottlieb (published January 2018, with a Foreword by Osborne), offers an update—including some “year one results” (page 21 and 22).[ii]  (My assessment of those pages: the two schools already doing well improved, the two low-performing schools did not.) 

In that Foreword, Osborne asks five useful questions that speak “to the future of the innovation zone experiment in Denver.”  I add more questions here; if they sound like they come from the point of view of a teacher, not a school administrator, I would merely answer: exactly.  I then propose an alternative model for school networks in Denver Public Schools.

4 LLN schools – headed north, east, south, west
At Cole, sessions to improve their work with “children experiencing trauma”[iii]; Denver Green School invited a staff member to work on “conflict resolution rather than punishment”; C3 “brought in additional nursing services”; Ashley paid for “supplementary online math curriculum.”[iv]
We can bring schools together—not just out of their shared their frustration with district control—but out of their shared belief about what a good education is.  I see no common thread in the mission of the first four LLN schools: Creativity Challenge Community, Denver Green Schools, Cole Arts & Science Academy, and Ashley Elementary.  I read of no common professional development around teaching and learning.  Each school is using its financial freedom to choose what seems best to serve its own particular needs (see box).

What is the value of a “network” of schools sailing in four different directions? I see the appeal for school administrators, but not for teachers.  Above all, not for better teaching and learning. (“CASE STUDY” devotes one paragraph to LLN’s Teacher Advisory Council, but its purpose sounds as vague and vapid as any typical district workshop.  One council member says it will “provide structures and supports to educate the whole child, by creating more action-oriented, teacher-driven professional learning opportunities, while holding the zone accountable to the community.”[v]  Good grief.)


Shared beliefs
   I enjoyed such sharing when I taught in a Core Knowledge school. A number of professional development days were spent with other teachers—from Core Knowledge schools around the state—teaching my subject (English) and my grades (7,8).  At Core Knowledge conferences, workshops offered meaningful professional development—what we as teachers wanted and needed, not what our districts told us to attend—with peers holding a common vision of a good K-8 curriculum.[vi]
   Yes, most of these schools were charters, and yes, we valued our autonomy.  But the network mattered to teachers because it was about what took place in our classrooms. This is not the model I see in the Luminary Learning Network.
When what you have in common is what you’re against – too much district control and/or interference—that is not enough.  How does this benefit teachers seeking to carry out the mission of their school, with its distinct curriculum and instruction?  It is in our classrooms where a school’s educational philosophy plays out.  This former teacher sees little value in networking with buildings committed to different ideas about what makes “a good school.”

In contrast, we see shared beliefs about curriculum and instruction in Denver’s two largest networks, each with a dozen schools: Denver Science and Technology Schools and STRIVE Prep schools.  It may be there as well for the three KIPP schools and three Rocky Mountain Prep schools. It is easy to imagine similar networks for other educational models and “brand names”—such as Montessori, Expeditionary Learning, Early College, and Denver Center for International Studies. 


Part I. –  The Luminary Learning Network – frustration as a unifying principle?

We read that the four schools in the LLN began with a shared exasperation over rules and regulations from the district that limited their capacity to make key decisions. They did not come together as schools sharing a common educational model.
Again from Osborne’s Foreword to “CASE STUDY,” one word captures the key motive behind the formation of the LLN. (Bold mine)

   The innovation schools have experienced increased but partial autonomy and accountability, and that half-way status has led to widespread frustration. Principals and teachers have been frustrated when the district refuses to honor the autonomy promised in their innovation plans, whether to purchase what they need, opt out of required district meetings, or manage their own professional development. And school board members have been frustrated that innovation schools have not, on average, performed better than traditional public schools, at least through 2015.
   Those frustrations led a group of principals to propose an improvement on the model: an “innovation zone” ….[vii]

Equally problematic, the four schools were in remarkably different places re their performance.  As they began their effort in the fall 2016 they were given four different School Performance Framework ratings. Results only widened after year one of this work.  If a network like this is good for schools already doing well, but is unable to help low-performing schools Meet Expectations, why bother?  “CASE STUDY” quotes DPS school board member Barbara O’Brien asking about the future of the innovation zone:
“Do kids learn more, and faster? That’s the key question. If not, why would we expand it? What is the point of autonomy for autonomy’s sake?”
It continues: “O’Brien said in the summer of 2016, that she had been ‘forthright’ with all parties that she doesn’t see any wisdom in expanding the zone until three years have passed and the board can evaluate whether the innovation zone has borne fruit in the form of markedly improved student achievement.”[viii]
Reasonable, yes? Apparently not. The CASE study reported that as early as September of 2016 DPS was talking with a number of schools interested in expanding the LLN.  Although none of those plans went forward for 2017-18, this past winter Chalkbeat Colorado reported that 13 schools are now interested in “joining the district’s first ‘innovation zone’ or by banding together for their own zones.”[ix]
Because year one went so well?  (Do we even know what it means to be a pilot program?[x])

Denver’s School Performance Framework – 2014, 2016, & 2017 - % Earned Points and Ratings*



2014
2016
2017
Creativity Challenge Community
-
-
84.7
Distinguished
86.3
Distinguished
Denver Green School
55.3
Meets Expectations
61.7
Meets Expectations
73.7
Meets Expectations
Ashley Elementary**
47.52
Accredited on Watch
34.4
Accredited on Priority Watch
45.5
Accredited on Watch
Cole Arts & Science
47.65
Accredited on Watch
46.7
Accredited on Watch
41.1
Accredited on Watch

*SPF data throughout taken from DPS reports at http://spf.dpsk12.org/en/2017-spf-ratings/. There was no SPF in 2015.

**Note – Ashley gained Innovation status in 2013, well before the LLN.  Were there signs by 2016 that greater autonomy was proving helpful?  And while Ashley Elementary rose from Accredited on Priority Watch in 2016 to Accredited on Watch in 2017, student achievement status earned 34% points, just above the Does Not Meet cut off.  Cole, at 32% points, earned a Does Not Meet status on achievement.

Gottlieb’s CASE STUDY provided a breakdown of 2016 vs. 2017 results at the four schools.[xi]  Good news for the two stronger schools.  For the two low-performing schools, results in 2017 were worse in 6 of 8 categories.  Especially disturbing: the much lower growth scores for Ashley Elementary in 2017.



CMAS Standards
Meets or Exceed Expectations
Median Growth Percentile


2016
2017
2016
2017
Ashley Elementary
ELA
19%
18%
45
36
MATH
5%
12%
42
32
Cole Arts & Science
ELA
20%
21%
60
49
MATH
12%
6%
35
17

An introduction to the LLN by the Gates Family Foundation says that the CASE STUDY should be read by “State policymakers interested in creating or leveraging laws that allow innovation zones to be used as a tool for increasing school/community-level autonomy, accountability, and student outcomes.”[xii] (Bold mine.)  And if it doesn’t?


Part II. – What could be: networks around common educational models/beliefs

Over the past 25 years charter school advocates have been admonished time and again: “school autonomy is no silver bullet.” Sorry sorry sorry if we ever said that it was!  Freedom from the constraints of unnecessary rules and regulations was always a means to an end: to try to serve students well.

Denver’s (perhaps generous) 2017 SPF listed 55 schools Accredited on Watch, 16 Accredited on Priority Watch, and 10 Accredited on Probation.  A total of 81, over one-third of Denver’s schools, serving over 34,000 students.[xiii] If we define the essential problem for DPS to be low student achievement for far too many students, and if low-performing schools granted innovation status have seldom improved enough to Meet Expectations, the LLN is a poor match for Denver’s major challenge.

A better match will be networks designed to assist and support strong teaching.  

In the spirit of school autonomy and Denver’s desire to be a “21stcentury school district,” we cannot expect the central office to provide professional development for 200 schools with such a vast range of educational philosophies.  Strong professional development is best coming from schools and experts in the Core Knowledge, Expeditionary Learning, Montessori, KIPP, or Early College family. And where the number of like-minded schools is too small within DPS, that network can (and often already does) expand to other districts (and states) with schools committed to the same principles.  

Furthermore, networks among schools with shared beliefs will be more motivated to help the “peers” within their network, schools where achievement is low.  As you will see, there are plenty of them.

DCIS and Montessori schools – Uneven results

I have a fond memory from over 20 years ago of visiting the highly-regarded Denver Center for International Studies, then located at West High School.  In 2017 DCIS joined the other three DCIS-themed schools as not Meeting Expectations at least once in the past two years.  I visited the DCIS at Montbello program three times last year.  So many challenges.  Can the more successful DCIS schools lend a hand?
Denver Center for International Studies

Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
Denver’s SPF rating - 2016
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
Denver’s SPF rating - 2017
SPF Color rating - 2017
DCIS at Ford
47.45
Accredited on Watch
58.75
Meets Expectations
Green
DCIS at Fairmont*
34.3
Accredited on Priority Watch
50.89
Meets Expectations
Green
58.74
Meets Expectations
53.03
Accredited on Watch
Yellow
DCIS at Montbello
43.07
Accredited on Watch
31.24
Accredited on Probation
Red

*DCIS did not meet expectations for Academic Gaps, Student Progress, and Family and Student Engagement, perhaps explaining why it is Accredited on Watch, in spite of earning more points than DCIS at Fairmont.


Of the six schools offering Montessori programs in DPS in 2015-16, two have since closed, and none of the other four have kept a rating of Meets Expectations two years in a row, 2015-16 to 2016-17.


Montessori

Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
Denver’s SPF rating - 2016
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2017
Denver’s SPF rating - 2017
SPF Color rating - 2017
Academia Ana Marie Sandoval
47.59
Accredited on Watch
59.46
Meets Expectations
Green
Dennison Montessori School
44.68
Accredited on Watch
56.30
Meets Expectations
Green
Denver Montessori Junior High School
62
Meets Expectations
47.3
Accredited on Watch
Yellow
Monarch Montessori
40
Accredited on Watch
43.75
Accredited on Watch
Yellow
Escuela Tiatelolco*
24.66
Accredited on Probation
CLOSED AFTER 2016




Gilpin Montessori**
19.01
Accredited on Probation
26.74
Accredited on Probation
RED
CLOSED

*DPS ended its contract with Escuela Tiatelolco after 2015-16.
**DPS closed this school at the end of 2016-17.

The Montessori approach is admired and applied across the globe.  Its reputation will not be badly damaged by the disappointing performance of schools in one Colorado school district.  But where an educational model is newer, perhaps even home-grown (DCIS, Rocky Mountain Prep, STRIVE Prep) poor and inconsistent performance by schools bearing the same name can have greater repercussions.  Especially, perhaps, in a district like DPS, where replication of strong models plays a central role. [xiv]

(Which raises a question for Denver parents. To what extent can they read of schools identified as DCIS or Montessori, or, for that matter, DSST, KIPP, STRIVE, Expeditionary Learning (EL), or Early College—and say, with confidence: Any school with that name will be a good choice for my child.)

This is why I believe schools with the same name or brand will feel a responsibility to insist on a high quality for each and every one of “their” schools.  I see this in DSST and STRIVE.  Not all of their schools Meet Expectations (see below), and yet they seem to take responsibility for improvement at “one of their own.” We also see their expansion put on hold when a couple of their schools struggle.

I sense that the DCIS and Montessori schools do not belong to such a network.  What if they did?  If we as educators take pride in the model that makes most sense to us—that we as teachers act on every day as we prepare for class—why would we allow a DCIS or a Montessori (or KIPP or Early College …) school across town to stumble and fail?  What if all Denver schools flying under the same banner, with common names, looked at their peers and said: We are in this together. How well you succeed, how you are perceived, affects us too.  


What’s in a name?

DCIS and Montessori are just two examples.  We see many schools with a shared identity perform at dramatically different levels.

CONTRASTING RESULTS:  After the 2016-17 school year we see:

Three Early College programs rated Meets Expectations (green), but two rated Accredited on Watch (yellow).

Only one of three Expeditionary Learning schools rated Meets Expectations.

Four of five KIPP schools rated Meets Expectations or better. Note, however, the contrast between its highest rated school, Distinguished (blue), earning 90.5% points on the SPF, with its lowest rated school, Accredited on Probation (red), earning 32.2% points.

One STRIVE school rated Distinguished (blue) earning 91.7% points on the SPF and another 7 rated Meets Expectations. And yet, two were Accredited on Watch (yellow), and one was Accredited on Priority Watch (orange), earning 36.5% points.

Most DSST schools again earned high ratings in 2017: 4 rated Distinguished (blue) and another 6 rated Meets Expectations (green).  Still, two DSST schools were Accredited on Watch (yellow).  The gap in percentage points earned by the top two DSST schools (nearly 90%) and the bottom two (close to 40%) is huge.


Early College
School
Denver’s SPF % pts earned- 2016
Denver’s SPF rating
2016
Denver’s SPF - % pts
earned- 2017
Denver’s SPF rating
2017
SPF Color rating
2017
CEC Early College
73.85
Meets Expectations
61.86
Meets Expectations
Green
Southwest Early College
48.02
Accredited on Watch
55.82
Meets Expectations
Green
Dr. Martin Luther King Early College
40.0
Accredited on Watch

51.05
Meets Expectations
(BUT Achievement Status - 28.67 Does Not Meet)
Green
Hi Tech Early College
46.33
Accredited on Watch
49.1
Accredited on Watch
Yellow
West Early College
26.06
Accredited on Probation
39.64
Accredited on Watch
(Achievement Status – 21.23 Does Not Meet)
Yellow


Expeditionary Learning
School
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned 2016
Denver’s SPF -  % pts earned 2016
Denver’s SPF rating
2017
Denver’s SPF –
 % pts earned
 2017
SPF Color rating
2017
Odyssey School of Denver
71.90
Meets Expectations
60.78
Meets Expectations
Green
Centennial School
46.03
Accredited on Watch
51.39
Accredited on Watch
Yellow
Downtown Denver Expeditionary School
41.51
Accredited on Watch
38.12
Accredited on Priority Watch
Orange
Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning*


STATE’S SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK – 2017 –
Accredited with Distinction

*Rocky Mountain School of Expeditionary Learning, though located in Denver, operates under the five-district Expeditionary BOCES (Aurora, Cherry Creek, Denver, Douglas and Littleton).  


KIPP
School
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
Denver’s SPF rating
2016
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned- 2017
Denver’s SPF rating
2017
SPF Color rating
2017
KIPP Northeast Denver Leadership Academy
87.62
Distinguished
90.51
Distinguished

Blue
KIPP Sunshine Peak Academy
75.20
Meets Expectations
69.43
Meets Expectations
Green
KIPP Denver Collegiate High School
64.49
Meets Expectations
66.61
Meets
Expectations
Green
KIPP Northeast Elementary
-
-
66.07
Meets Expectations
Green
KIPP Montbello College Prep/ KIPP Northeast Denver Middle School
34.85
Accredited on Priority Watch
32.20
Accredited on Probation
Red





 STRIVE Prep
School
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
Denver’s SPF rating
2016
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2017
Denver’s SPF rating
2017
SPF Color rating
2017
STRIVE Prep - RISE
-
-
91.74
Distinguished
Blue
STRIVE Prep – Ruby Hill
80.49
Distinguished
74.03
Meets Expectations
Green
STRIVE Prep- Federal
75.38
Meets Expectations
68.16
Meets Expectations
Green
STRIVE Prep – Green Valley Ranch
61.48
Meets Expectations
60.38
Meets Expectations
Green
STRIVE Prep - Montbello
61.54
Meets Expectations
55.87
Meets Expectations
Green
STRIVE Prep - Kepner
-
-
53.64
Meets Expectations
Green
STRIVE Prep - Westwood
56.92
Meets Expectations
51.14
Meets Expectations
Green
STRIVE Prep - Lake
56.69
Meets Expectations
51.48
Meets Expectations
Green
STRIVE Prep - Sunnyside
54.62
Meets Expectations
45.71
Accredited on Watch
Yellow
STRIVE Prep - Excel
55.90
Meets Expectations
43.33
Accredited on Watch
Yellow
STRIVE Prep – SMART Academy
47.34
Accredited on Watch
36.51
Accredited on Priority Watch
Orange



Denver School of Science and Technology
School
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned - 2016
Denver’s SPF rating
2016
Denver’s SPF - % pts earned- 2017
Denver’s SPF rating
2017
SPF Color rating
2017
DSST: Byers Middle
81.48
Distinguished
89.9
Distinguished
Blue
DSST: College View High
91.67
Distinguished
86.9
Distinguished
Blue
DSST: Stapleton High
83.71
Distinguished
86.2
Distinguished
Blue
DSST: Green Valley Ranch High
85.38
Distinguished
80.6
Distinguished
Blue
DSST: Green Valley Ranch Middle
71.11
Meets Expectations
78.96
Meets Expectations
Green
DSST: Cole High
80.49
Distinguished
77.0
Meets Expectations
Green
DSST: Stapleton Middle
71.11
Meets Expectations
73.8
Meets Expectations
Green
DSST: Conservatory Green Middle
74.41
Meets Expectations
73.5
Meets Expectations
Green
DSST: Byers HS
-
-
71.4
Meets Expectations
Green
DSST: College View Middle
66.67
Meets Expectations
60.9
Meets Expectations
Green
DSST: Henry Middle
-
-
40.91
Accredited on Watch
Yellow
DSST: Cole Middle
48.15
Accredited on Watch
39.89
Accredited on Watch
Yellow



I include the STRIVE and DSST results to emphasize that not even our strongest existing networks have the issue solved; however, their experience in support of their lowest-performers could be instructive for all potential networks.  It is called “having skin in the game.”

Our name, our reputation, means the world to us as individuals.  Similarly, I believe those who care about the integrity of their school’s name, brand, or identity—however you call it—will be eager to work together to see that all their schools offer a quality education.  Moreover, teachers in low-performing schools would much sooner look to and learn from educators—committed to the same approach—who are more successful.

Several schools are already thinking this way.   In “These Denver schools want to join the district’s ‘innovation zone’ or form new zones,”[xv] Chalkbeat Colorado listed two Beacon school and two McAuliffe schools among the applicants.  I simply repeat: let’s not confuse a) the power of networks among schools with common beliefs, and b) innovation zones, which has not proven helpful to low-performing schools.  On the previous pages you read of 15 schools that are not Meeting Expectations. I believe they could benefit from a network with like-minded schools, without succumbing to the illusion that being on “innovation” will improve student achievement.

A network based on autonomy and taking back control holds far less potential than a network built around pride in our name, pride in what we stand for and practice as educators.


Two final thoughts

First, Superintendent Tom Boasberg and DPS have put in place Teacher Leadership and Collaboration that wisely makes good use of colleagues to coach and assess fellow teachers.  Can Denver see how schools sharing a common model can play a similar role, providing that “trusted coach/colleague” to their peers, especially to “their schools” struggling with low student achievement?

Second, Colorado law speaks of a school board’s “control of instruction in the public schools of their respective districts.”[xvi] But times have changed. The preceding pages remind us that in 2018 the Denver school board no longer “controls” the type of instruction and curriculum used by its 200-plus schools.  While schools must show they will address the state standards, as for curriculum, a host of models are welcome—Montessori, Expeditionary Learning, DSST, etc.  Consider then an intriguing similarity:



DPS schools / Charter schools in Colorado - with these educational designs*

Denver Public Schools (205 schools)  
Colorado League of Charter Schools[xvii]  (227 members)
DSST
12
Core Knowledge
73
STRIVE
12
STEM/STEAM
16
Early College
5
Classical
14
KIPP
5
Montessori
12
DCIS
4
Expeditionary Learning
9
Montessori
4
Early College
8
Expeditionary Learning
3
Dual Language/Language Immersion
7
Rocky Mountain Prep
3
Project Based
6
*Numbers are based on dated information. Likely higher now.

Can DPS learn from the League a new approach—more modest, less intrusive—regarding curriculum?

I recall the early days of the Colorado League of Charter Schools and how executive director Jim Griffin would insist that the League be “agnostic” about school models.  My experience with the League tells me it has maintained that openness to a broad range of educational philosophies. Several models listed above have state-wide and even national networks (in the case of Expeditionary Learning, over 150 schools in 33 states[xviii]) that hold conferences and offer professional development.  The League informs its schools about such events.  A district equally agnostic on curriculum could do the same. 





[i] AV #159 - When “on the clock,” Innovation Status to the rescue! – On what basis? (March 2017)
 AV #167 – Even LESS evidence now to grant innovation status to low-performing schools (Sept. 2017)
 AV #177 - APS school board still not being told student achievement data in ACTION Zone (March 2018)
[vi] I sensed an even deeper bond when teaching in a Catholic school here in Parker, CO; this non-Catholic could sense how the “frame of reference,” if you will, made it natural and meaningful when we met from other teachers within the Archdiocese to discuss standards and curriculum.
[x]pilot program, also called a feasibility study or experimental trial, is a small-scale, short-term experiment that helps an organization learn how a large-scale project might work in practice.”  https://www.google.com/search?q=pilot+program&oq=pilot+program&aqs=chrome..69i57.3088j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
[xiii] My count, using Denver’s 2017 School Performance Framework, which includes a column for enrollment. If this estimate seems high, note that six of Denver’s large high schools are among those Accredited on Watch (George Washington, John F. Kennedy, North, South, and Bruce Randolph) or Accredited on Priority Watch (Abraham Lincoln).
[xiv] See http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2017/05/19/these-22-schools-just-won-approval-from-the-denver-school-board/: 4 more University Prep schools; 3 more Rocky Mountain Prep schools; and 3 more STRIVE elementary schools.
[xvii] Among the 25 types listed in the state’s 2016 report, “Charter School Diversity of Educational Programming, 2014-2015, http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/20160719stateofcharterupdated

No comments:

Post a Comment