Tuesday, May 22, 2018

AV #179 - Education priority #3 for our next governor: Our 160 low-performing schools


Sea of Red

“Under the new federal education law, ESSA, [states] are still required to identify and intervene in the lowest performing 5 percent of schools. What to do, though, has perplexed education policymakers for years.”[i] (Chalkbeat, Aug. 17, 2017)

1.   NATIONAL GOVERNOR’S ASSOCIATION  EDUCATION DIVISION STRATEGIC PLAN
    SEPTEMBER 2017 -  DECEMBER 2020[ii]
2. GOVERNORS’ TOP EDUCATION PRIORITIES IN 2018 STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESSES – MARCH 2018[iii]
(Education Commission of the States)

It is appalling that they have received little attention from our current governor for eight years.  Although if you look at the recommended priorities on education from the National Governors Association (Box 1) or consider the education priorities governors across the country articulated this past winter[iv] (Box 2), they do not appear to be on anyone’s short list this year.  That summary from ECS found the top six concerns to be:

School finance, workforce development, postsecondary affordability, career and technical education, teacher quality, & early learning (K-3).

They are our lowest-performing schools.  It may be futile to ask Colorado’s next governor to tackle such a difficult problem.  It has stumped most superintendents and school boards—and remains a forbidding challenge for most educators: how to turn around these schools, as quickly as possible.  I ask anyway.

(It is worth noting other governors have, rhetorically at least, put the issue of their state’s low-performing schools front and center.  See my quotes from five state-of-the-state addresses, given in 2017, in AV #160 - Addendum A. What does it say that all five governors quoted are Republicans?  Or that Massachusetts, where Gov. Baker has focused on turnarounds, has had considerable success?[v])

Now that the major candidates to be Colorado’s next governor have put forth their priorities, I am reminded how little attention my own top three education priorities will get during the campaign.  OK, I see a few passing references to my first one, AV #170—Reading by the 4th grade (Dec. 2017), less on my second, AV #176–The state of teaching and teacher evaluation (Feb. 2018).  Priority #3 is almost never mentioned.  (One notable exception: Douglas Robinson. “… if they’re failing, we need a way to reconstitute those schools. … We cannot allow poor performance to continue.”[vi])  Why would it be?  The topic is a downer.  Besides, some will say, is it really that important?

After all, we’re “only” talking about schools not achieving the top two ratings (Performance or Improvement). Not a large number (roughly 160), a small percentage (about 9.2%) out of our 1,730 schools, serving less than 80,000 students.  Enrolling—an uncharitable observer might add—an above average percentage of low-income students and students of color.  Again, is it really that important?

And gosh, when one sees the steady number of schools falling well short of expectations throughout this decade (see box below), maybe “that’s just the way it is.”[vii]  Some students, and therefore some schools, have to be below average, right?  Lake Wobegon, let’s recall, is fiction.

The facts*

# and % of Colorado schools rated on Priority Improvement or Turnaround
Students in schools rated:
2011
2012
2013
2014
2016
2017
Priority Improvement
147
126
119
114
105
120
Turnaround
55
40
49
55
56
39
Total # in PI/TR schools
202
166
168
169
161
159
Total % of PI/TR schools
12.2%
9.8%
9.8%
9.9%
9.4%
9.2%
*Numbers from a presentation to State Board of Education, Dec. 13, 2017, “School Plan Type Recommendations,” by CDE’s Accountability & Data Analysis Unit.”[viii] It showed 88% on Performance or Improvement. Insufficient data: 2.7%. Totals are mine.


# and % of Colorado students in schools rated on Priority Improvement or Turnaround
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2016
2017
Priority Improvement
55,860
70,976
61,542
55,814
52,452
58,813
62,190
Turnaround
28,629
20,259
14,240
17,311
19,482
18,869
16,573
Total # in PI/TR schools
84,489
91,235
75,782
73,125
71,934
77,682
78,763
Total % in PI/TR schools
10.8%
11.5%
9.5%
9%
8.7%
9.3%
9.3%
Total # of students – Colorado K-12
783,706
789,833
799,750
814,261
826,106
832,061
848,066


Less than 10%—of both our schools, and our students.  For five straight years.  Not important, right?  Isn’t it better to see the glass half-full?  Cheer up!  Almost 90% of Colorado schools are doing OK!

**

The 2018 legislature at least acknowledged the problem of our lowest-performing schools.  It passed HB-1355-Public Education Accountability System,[ix] creating modest changes in the state’s accountability system.  Yet it was hard to find much self-reflection in the debates at the Capitol.  Why have we done so little to bring about dramatic improvement in our lowest-performing schools this past decade?  Who owns the problem?  Do all the parties concerned: the state board, the Colorado Department of Education, school districts, the struggling schools and their communities—feel someone else is finally responsible for chronic low performance?  I look back to May of 2009, when Gov. Bill Ritter signed the Educator Accountability Act into law.  We were so hopeful.  And now?  To be “on the clock” in year 7?

On that point.  How often have we heard since 2009 that the new law would mean serious consequences for schools – if after five (5) years they were not able to raise their performance above the two lowest ratings, Priority Improvement or Turnaround? (Bold mine)

·         2013 –“(d) The state board by rule shall specify how long a public school may implement an improvement, priority improvement, or turnaround plan; except that the state board shall not allow a public school to continue implementing a priority improvement or turnaround plan for longer than a combined total of five consecutive school years before requiring the school district or the institute to restructure or close the public school.” (Colorado Education Accountability Act of 2009[x])   
·         2017 – “Under SB-163, districts and schools may not remain on Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plans for more than five consecutive years. Those that do face significant action from the State Board of Education.  Consequences may include actions such as:
• Removal of accreditation
• Public or private management
• Conversion to a charter or Innovation Status
• School closure”[xi]

·         2017 – “Schools that receive the state’s lowest ratings are put on the so-called ‘accountability clock.’ Schools that do not improve within five years receive a state-ordered school improvement plan — which could include turning schools over to independent operators or granting schools increased autonomy — aimed at boosting student performance.”[xii]

And yet what did that 2017 Chalkbeat article, just quoted above, tell us? Only “two schools will face state intervention next year: Manaugh Elementary in the Montezuma-Cortez school district [year 6 on PI/TR] and Martinez Elementary in the Greeley district [year 5 on PI/TR].”  That’s it?

Seven years on Priority Improvement or Turnaround

The picture below might seem cruel.  These are the results you can find at the Colorado Department of Education’s website regarding their School Performance Framework, beginning in 2010.  (There was no SPF in 2015 due to changes in the assessment that year.  Any guesses as to what it would have been?).  So while this is not seven consecutive years, it is a snapshot of where these schools have landed on the state’s rating since the beginning of this decade.  Covering seven academic years.  Not 3. Not 4. Not 5. Seven years.  Read it and weep.  See Addendum B for the State Board’s efforts “to save” these schools.

Priority Improvement 
PI  - orange
Turnaround
TR  - red
                                               
School/district
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2016
2017
Adams City High/
Adams 14
TR
PI
PI
PI
PI
PI
TR
Aurora Central High/ Aurora Public Schools*
PI
PI
PI
PI
PI
TR
PI
Aguilar Junior-Senior High/ Las Animas
PI
PI
PI
PI
PI
TR
PI
Hope Online Elementary/ Douglas County
TR
PI
PI
PI
TR*
PI
PI
Hope Online Middle/Douglas County
TR
PI
PI
PI
TR*
PI
PI
Prairie Heights Middle/Greeley 6
TR
TR
TR
PI
PI
PI
PI
Bessamer Elementary/
Pueblo 60
TR
TR
PI
TR
PI
PI
PI
Heroes Middle*/
Pueblo 60
TR
TR
TR
TR
TR
PI
PI
Risley International Academy of Innovation*/ Pueblo 60
TR
TR
TR
PI
TR
TR
TR

*Note that three of these schools received substantial “turnaround” grants from the federal government’s School Improvement Grant program, an initiative of the Obama Administration. 
·         Heroes Middle (formerly Freed middle) - $2.1 million[xiii] (2010-11 to 2012-13)
·         Risley International Academy (formerly Risley Middle) – $2.1 million (2010-11 to 2012-13)
·         Aurora Central High School –  $2.5 million (2013-14 to 2015-16)

Three other Pueblo schools besides Heroes Middle and Risley International were also awarded large SIG funds—to be spent between 20101-11 and 2012-13—to bring about significant improvement. Here are the grant figures, and then their School Performance ratings since 2010.
·         Central High - $2.8 million
·         Pueblo Academy of Arts (formerly Pitts Middle) - $2.2 million
·         Roncalli International -  $2.2 million



2009-10 (before SIG grant)
2010-11 (year 1 of SIG Grant)
2011-12  (year 2)
2013        (year 3)
2014
2016
2017
Central High
PI
Year 1
PI
Year 2
Improve-ment
Improve-
ment
PI
Year 1
PI
Year 2
PI
Year 3
Pitts Middle /
(now) Pueblo Academy of Arts
TR
Year 1
TR
Year 2
TR
Year 3
Improve-ment
TR
Year 1
Improve-
ment
TR
Year 1
(now) Roncalli STEM Academy
PI
Year 1
TR
Year 2
TR*
Year 3
TR
Year 4
TR
Year 5
Improve-
ment
TR
Year 1
    *(The state saw so little progress at Roncalli that it did not send the SIG funds for year three, 2012-13.)

Denver Public Schools received $14.8 million in that first SIG largesse—largely to turn around Montbello and North High, Lake and Noel Middle, and Gilpin K-8 and Greenlee Elementary.  A selective look at a few of those schools and new designs that came of turnaround efforts offers a sea of red and orange—especially the past three years.  No district in the state has been more attentive to the problem of its lowest performing schools, or more willing to close them and welcome new schools. And yet even in …

DPS

2009-10 (before SIG grant)
2010-11  (year 1 of SIG Grant)
2011-12  (year 2)
2013        (year 3)
2014
2016
2017
DCIS at Montbello
X
Perfor-
mance
Improve-
ment
Improve-
ment
Improve-
ment
Improve-
ment
TR
Year 1
Noel
X
Perfor-mance
Improve-
ment
Improve-
ment
TR
Year1
PI
Year 2
PI
Year 3
Lake International
X
PI
Year 1
Improve-
ment
TR
Year 1
TR
Year 2
Improve-
ment
TR
Year 1
Gilpin
Montessori
PI
Improve-
ment
TR
Year 1
TR
Year 2
PI
Year 3
TR
Year 4
Closed after 2016-17 year
Greenlee
Perfor-mance
TR
Year 1
TR
Year 2
TR
Year 3
TR
Year 4
PI
Improve-
ment

You ask: Aren’t you leaving out the good story of how North High used its SIG grant well and has been rated on Improvement or Performance for five straight years?  Or the success of new STRIVE PREP schools at Montbello and Lake?  Yes.[xiv] And—if you wish to see the glass half full—Greenlee was rated Improvement in 2017, so there is something positive there.  Still, one cannot ignore the terribly long string of 5 straight years that Greenlee was rated PI/R.  Lake International has had a bumpy ride–now back on the accountability clock (for the third time).   Noel’s rating has declined—now on year 3 “on the clock.” Gilpin Montessori, as I showed in AV #157, was given eight years to improve—and it failed.[xv]  

Have I dwelled too long over the failures of the federal School Improvement Grants, over $70 million coming to Colorado (see AV #142, “Brief for the new Commissioner–SIG and the bottom 5%,” Jan. 20, 2016—reviewing seven of my newsletters), in a way that sends the message that we cannot bring about dramatic improvement in our lowest-performing schools?  At a session on turnaround schools at the Washington Policy Seminar in March, attended by Fellows in the Colorado Education Policy Fellowship Program, Andrew Rotherham of Bellwether Partners observed that the disappointing results of the federal initiative may have fed into a too-cynical narrative that little can be done.  He also spoke of racist attitudes behind some of the pessimism: the belief that “of course those kids CAN’T learn.”

Like Rotherham, I would say, of course those kids can learn. 

Rotherham also commented that most states and districts have used “a light touch” with their lowest-performing schools, often setting up “escape hatches” that allow schools to avoid accountability. This is Colorado’s story, true?  (Again, see Addendum B.)  The “red sea” above shows just that: chronic low achievement continued without major consequences—except, tragically, for the students who attend such schools for three (middle), four (high), or five or more (elementary) years.

Let us at least be honest and admit that the kids who endure many years in these schools are not being well-served.  Call it a matter of equity, of social justice, of fairness, any way you put it, this is wrong.

Year six – from a parent’s point of view

A recent Chalkbeat Colorado article listed three elementary schools that “have just one more year to improve test scores or face the state board in 2019: Minnequa Elementary in Pueblo, Central Elementary in Commerce City, and Paris Elementary in Aurora.”[xvi] (Bold mine)

Always – one more year.

Let’s try to make this personal.  Let’s look at these three schools, over time.  A lot of time. 

Dear Mom, Dad, Grandma – You enrolled your kindergartner in this elementary school in the fall of 2011.  Let’s call this child Alicia or Antonio.

Here is one account—by no means the full story, maybe even not a fair summary, but I trust it has some value—of how these schools performed throughout the past six years.  Not once performing at what might be a “satisfactory” level (IMPROVEMENT).  When the 2012-13 school year opened it was placed on the accountability clock, according to SB 163.  This continued year after year, earning the lowest (TURNAROUND) or second lowest (PRIORITY IMPROVEMENT) ratings. No doubt strong, perhaps Herculean efforts were made to improve the school’s performance, but this six (6) year story tells us any such changes were insufficient. 

All six (6) years of your child’s elementary school education.  Years that can never be given back.

In most cases the consequences were felt this year when Alicia and Antonio entered middle school.  It seems likely they arrived performing well below grade level—and continue to do so, with even less time now to catch up before arriving in high school, where walking into classes two or three grade levels below where 9th graders should be can be devastating….

KINDERGARTEN
FIRST GRADE
2nd GRADE
4th GRADE
5th GRADE
School
District
2012
2013
2014
2016*
2017
Central Elementary
Adams 14
Year 1
PI
Year 2
PI
Year 3
PI
Year 4
PI
Year 5
PI
Minnequa Elementary
Pueblo 60
Year 1
PI
Year 2
TR
Year 3
TR
Year 4
TR
Year 5
TR
Paris Elementary**
Aurora
Year 1
PI
Year 2
PI
Year 3
PI
Year 4
PI
Year 5
PI
*There no school ratings in 2015, the year the state shifted from TCAP to PARCC tests.

**Over three years ago, In AV #126, I wrote an Open Letter to the State Board of Education and the Colorado Department of Education: “Paris Elementary School – 2012-2014 - a narrative” (13 pages). I have continued to point out unsatisfactory results at Paris Elementary: in AV #167 (Sept. 2017), in a letter to candidates for the Board of Education for Aurora Public Schools (Oct. 2017), and in AV #177 (Jan. 2018).  Aurora’s superintendent recently suggested APS can manage its schools just fine, without the state playing a more active role.[xvii]  Really?  Based on the evidence of the past five years?  A district with 13 schools on Priority Improvement or Turnaround?

In 2015 the Colorado Department of Education directed its federal “improvement grant” to three schools, two of them in Aurora Public Schools--roughly $1.3 million to support improvement efforts at Boston K-8, and another $1.3 million to, yes, Paris Elementary.  How’s the return on that investment looking? And yet Aurora wants to tell the state: send us the money, but leave us alone?


Why the governor matters – “separate but unequal”

“The governor might have little authority in the technical sense, but the governor has great power to influence education policy …. No one has the bully pulpit that the governor has.
I do think that is a great deal of power.”  Luke Ragland, President, Ready Colorado[xviii]

Carissa Miller, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers[xix]

A would-be state leader should insist that to have at least 160 low-performing public schools, enrolling nearly 80,000 students in our state, is not just “unfortunate”— it is unacceptable.  CDE reports we have 1,200 schools given the highest-rating, on Performance, and 40 with the lowest, on Turnaround.  That might be called our modern version of schools that are separate but unequal.  Yes, this is a moral issue. 

Our next governor should understand that, since the new federal education law, ESSA, means less involvement (and/or interference, you choose) from Washington on school turnarounds, it is largely up to each state to determine how to address its struggling schools.

In Colorado, a goal of significant improvement in 160—or 100—or even 50, between 2019 and 2022—may seem unreachable.  But let’s try. I will be the first to shout at the top of my voice: IT IS COMPLICATED!  THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS!  But we cannot continue to say, and act as if, this is not important.

I hope our next governor agrees.



Addendum A 

Excerpt from AV #160  - “Glad, Jealous - … Priorities for our next governor?” (April 23, 2017)

 for those of you who wish to succeed Hickenlooper in 2019, take note of the attention to specific K-12 issues we hear from other governors.  I am not always jealous of the specific positions they take.  I hope to avoid revealing my bias on the positions advocated here.  My emphasis is on the degree to which, as the highest elected officer in their state, their speeches focused on K-12 issues.  True, mere words.  But an indication—is it not?—of interest, perhaps even commitment.  And leadership.

Governors’ State of the State Addresses – Education – 2017

All taken from Education Week’s summaries of state-of-the-state addresses given by governors this winter [2017].  Found in Education Week’s issues of Jan. 11, 18, 25, and Feb 8, 15, March 1.

1.       I am jealous when other governors … focus on their lowest-performing schools.
   The Colorado Department of Education lists 104 schools/programs (roughly 5% of our 1,900 schools) eligible in 2017 for federal TIG funds “to support schools identified as chronically low performing schools as indicated by state assessments.”[xx]   

If the state believes it has on obligation to provide an equitable education to all its students, it is necessary (both No Child Left Behind and the new federal law, Every Student Succeeds Act, concur) to make an extra commitment to address its lowest-performing schools, those in the bottom 5% on state ratings.
                                                                                                             
Hence my jealousy when the governor speaks of the state’s responsibility to confront the sad truth that far too many low-performing schools fail to make significant improvement, in spite of large grants and innumerable efforts. In our “laboratories,” we have pursued a wide range of strategies to turn these schools around.  Given the poor results—so far—in most states, how sad that we do not do more to learn from each other on what is and is not working.  At least these governors assert: we must tackle this problem.  The state will act. 

Georgia - Gov. Nathan Deal (R) – “… said he would work with leaders of Georgia's GOP-controlled statehouse to craft legislation to address ‘chronically failing schools,’ particularly at the elementary school level. The vast majority of Georgia's lowest-performing schools serve those grades, he said. The importance of helping those schools should be clear, including to ‘those in the education community who so staunchly support the status quo,’ the governor said.”

Idaho - Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R) – “Other funding would go toward leadership training of principals in low-performing schools….”

Massachusetts – Gov. Charlie Baker (R) - “encouraged the state’s board of education to use its power to take over ‘struggling districts.’  Existing takeovers of three districts have demonstrated that state takeovers can offer significant benefits to students, parents, and teachers in schools that need our support.’” 

Illinois – Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) - “Education was a significant piece of the governor's annual address to legislators, in which he outlined 10 long-term goals including expanding school choice for children attending academically struggling schools….”

Maryland – Gov. Larry Hogan (R) - “He also advocated passage of a bill that would facilitate charter school approvals in Maryland, and pushed to add $2 million to a $5 million voucher program that lets low-income students attend private schools. That investment would help children who are ‘trapped in persistently failing schools,’ Hogan said.”


Addendum B

“Colorado stepped in to save its lowest-performing schools in 2017. Whether it will work may not be answered in 2018.” (Chalkbeat Colorado, Nic Garcia, Dec. 20, 2017)

   This year marked a turning point for Colorado education officials and the state’s lowest performing schools.
   Seven years after the state’s current school accountability system went into effect, the State Board of Education fulfilled its duty by stepping in to direct improvement plans for districts and schools that have not improved test scores since 2010.
   This spring was the first time since 2004 — when the state board stepped in to save Denver’s Cole Middle School (and failed) — that Colorado has taken such drastic steps to improve schools.
   In an effort to take some of the sting out of the state board’s action, officials from the state education department worked first with school districts to draw up plans that tried to strike a balance between drastic action and manageable change to keep chaos to a minimum.
   Throughout the spring, a pattern emerged: Most schools turned to outside consultants to take on varying roles in helping improve schools.
   The state board agreed to allow Aurora Central to keep putting its existing improvement plan in place, while asking a consultant to take a slightly larger role. But the board demanded that Pueblo City Schools turnover much more decision making authority to its consultants.
   Similar agreements to work with consultants were put in place in the Adams 14 and Westminster school districts.
   Critics of the process — including some state board members — wondered whether the intervention plans would be enough. But supporters of the process and some national observers suggested the state’s approach could be a model to create better and longer lasting results.
   The state board is expected to get a status update on how the schools are performing early next year.




[i] New study deepens nation’s school turnaround mystery, finding little success in Rhode Island,” by Matt Barnum, 8/17/17

The country’s smallest state tried to accomplish a big task in 2012: improve its struggling schools without firing principals or making other dramatic changes….

new study on those efforts says they didn’t help — and in some cases may have even hurt — student achievement.
It’s the latest in a string of research painting a grim picture of school turnaround efforts under the No Child Left Behind waivers the Obama administration granted to states. Recent studies show that those turnaround plans did not improve student achievement in Louisiana or Michigan, though they did have a positive effect in Kentucky.
The analysis, published in the peer-reviewed journal Educational Policy, leaves states in a tough spot. Under the new federal education law, ESSA, they are still required to identify and intervene in the lowest performing 5 percent of schools. What to do, though, has perplexed education policymakers for years.

[v]Gov. Baker Praises Springfield's School Turnaround Model,” May 16, 2017.

   Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker praised an innovative approach to improving underperforming urban schools during a visit today to a Springfield school.
   A panel of teachers and administrators who are participating in the Springfield Empowerment Zone Partnership told Baker the model adopted at each of the city’s middle schools has worked well, with student test scores trending up and parents giving it high marks as the program nears the end of its second academic year.
    During the roughly 30-minute long roundtable in the library of the Forest Park Middle School, Baker and Massachusetts Education Secretary James Peyser asked several questions about the mechanics of the program where the educators in each school are given autonomy over curriculum, budgets, scheduling, professional development, and the school calendar.
   " I just want to say congratulations to you all, and I am going to come back next year and we are going to pay a lot of attention to what you are up to," the governor said at the conclusion of the briefing.
    Baker’s visit Tuesday was the second time he’s gone to a Springfield Empowerment Zone school for a briefing. He gave a shout-out to the program during his State of Commonwealth address this year.
[vi]What sort of specific resources or policies would you support to improve district-run schools?” (Douglas Robinson)
  The challenge today for the governor of Colorado is that the governor doesn’t have direct control of schools like the governor does in most other states. So the governor doesn’t get to appoint anybody to the state board or the department of education. And we have local control, which is generally a good thing. So the school district gets to decide a lot of things.
  A lot of governors have said, “I don’t have a lot to do here.” But what the governor has is the power of the bully pulpit.
  I’d encourage statutory changes to do something like what Louisiana has done to create a Recovery School District. I fundamentally believe there isn’t a population in the state that, with the right school leadership and teachers, can’t produce great results for our kids.
  I would advocate for the governor to be able to appoint the head of the department of education. And I would advocate for giving the department of education — statutorily — a bigger stick to compel accountability.
  Generally, I’m a fan of more local control. You have high standards and you let the local districts get there. But if they’re failing, we need a way to reconstitute those schools. We need to do it for the kids. We cannot allow poor performance to continue.” https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2017/09/12/doug-robinson-gop-candidate-for-governor-wants-more-authority-to-fix-states-struggling-schools/
[vii] “The Way It Is,” by Bruce Hornsby.
[viii]https://www.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/AU257W802A16/$file/2017_SPF_SBE_12_12_17.pdf                                       
[xii] https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2017/12/13/more-than-140-colorado-public-schools-identified-for-low-performance-in-2017-state-quality-ratings/                                                                                                                                 
[xiii] Totals here are rounded to nearest hundred thousand. Much of data on size of grants from CDE website, http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/tieredinterventiongrantresources  and from the report by A Plus Denver: Turning Around Low Achieving Schools in Colorado (Oct. 2011).
[xiv] Yes, and my quick summary there also fails to include this good news: Five other DPS schools that received SIG funding after that first year have also demonstrated it CAN be done, moving up from Turnaround and/or Priority Improvement status to – in all five cases – reaching Performance in 2017:  Castro, Charles Schenck, DCIS at Ford, Fairview and Trevista. 
[xv] AV #157 – “On closing schools – Swallow hard and admit it: yes, even educators can fail,” Jan. 27, 2017.  There I first spoke of “Alicia and Antonio” enduring six years in a low-performing school. I use their names again in my look at three schools, p. 5.
[xvii] “A bill (HB 1355) introduced this week in the Colorado General Assembly would lay out those next steps – and give the Colorado Department of Education a greater role earlier in the process….
    “But not every district leader wants the state department more involved.
    “’I would challenge you to find anyone who is begging for that benefit,’ said Aurora Superintendent Rico Munn.” https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2018/04/07/whats-next-for-colorado-schools-on-the-clock-this-accountability-bill-would-show-the-way/

[xviii] How Colorado conservatives are pressing GOP candidates for governor on education policy.”

[xix] Districts Aim to Wield Evidence-Based Tools In Satisfying ESSA on School Turnarounds,” Education Week, April 4, 2018. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/04/04/satisfying-essas-evidence-based-requirement-proves-tricky.html