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
|
|
(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]
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….
A 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.
[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
[xx]
CDE, Tiered Intervention Grant- RFP. http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/tieredinterventiongrant_rfp
No comments:
Post a Comment