No need
to abandon the School Performance Framework, but it is far from perfect.
Case in point: Paris Elementary and student achievement
“Nearly
a decade ago, our state laid a new foundation for evaluating the success of
K-12 schools –
a model that has been replicated across the
country….
But
the experience of local educators in recent years has made it clear it is time
for another shift.”
“It’s
time to change Colorado’s school accountability system,”[i]
The Denver Post, Rebecca Holmes and Lisa
Yates, Dec. 19, 2018
That guest commentary made a good case for “rethinking accountability”
for our schools, and I cheer on the efforts Holmes and Yates are piloting in a
number of districts.[i]
Here is perhaps a more basic reason to re-examine our School Performance
Framework. Is the most modest growth trumping dismal achievement scores? How
else can a school like Paris Elementary be rated on Improvement?
It is mean-spirited to jump on those who are down, and as I
see it, Aurora Public Schools and—my focus here—one of its schools, are in grave
trouble, so what I write here can be seen as mean. But to know how our
students perform is much too important to let this pass. Just as it is vital to
know how well our schools are serving our students. For the moment, Colorado’s
School Performance Framework remains our guide. But it is surely imperfect, and
it can sometimes be wrong.
AV #128 – “Paris Elementary School – 2012-2014
– a narrative” (March 2015) – “An Open
Letter to the State Board of Education and the Colorado Department of
Education,” was an earlier warning about the school, on Priority Improvement for a second
year. It then spent the next three years on Priority Improvement.
|
Paris Elementary spent five years on Priority Improvement on the state’s School Performance Framework
(SPF), and thus approached the end of the accountability clock this past year
(see Addendum A). But in December Paris
somehow received (I cannot say earned) 42.9 total percent points on the SPF,
and it is now rated on Improvement. This
is the second highest rating on the state’s SPF.
APS staff: Transparent on results? APS school board: Curious?[iii]
Indifferent? Irresponsible?
Did student performance at Paris improve enough to earn the
state’s second highest rating in 2018?
Do not ask the school board at Aurora Public Schools; APS staff prefers
not to provide achievement scores to the board. (I have criticized this twice before:
“Open Letter to Aurora Public Schools,” Oct. 10, 2017, and last March, AV #177
- APS school board still not being told
student achievement data in ACTION Zone.) It was no different earlier
this month when staff gave an update on the five schools in the Action ZONE: 15
slides and not one word on student
achievement. Unbelievable. See Addendum
B.)
[The specific presentation on Aurora Central High School at
that board meeting was even more appalling, but ACHS is not my focus. If
interested, Addendum C includes some data (the board did not see).]
No easy answers, but consider this—from page 2 of the Final
School Performance Framework for Paris Elementary for 2016, and for 2017, and
now the most recent one, for 2018.
Paris Elementary School
– School Performance Framework – 2016 - 2018
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
|
|||||||
Subject
|
Student Group
|
Mean
Scale Score
|
Rating
|
||||
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
||
English
Language Arts
|
All students
|
698.2
|
707.5
|
709.3*
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Previously Identified for READ Plan
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
English Learners
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Minority Students
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Students with Disabilities
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Math
|
All students
|
695.6
|
697.2
|
703.0*
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
English Learners
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Minority Students
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Students with Disabilities
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Science
|
All students
|
457.9
|
454.9
|
455.4
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
English Learners
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Minority Students
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
Students with Disabilities
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
||||
*TO NOTE: State average for ELA, for
grades 3-5, close to 743; state average for Math, grades 3-5, close to 737. [iv]
DOES NOT MEET on Academic Achievement is based the PARCC/CMAS
results. Take a look.
2018 – PARCC/CMAS - %
who met or exceeded expectations – state, district, school[v]
COLORADO
|
AURORA
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
|
PARIS
ELEMENTARY
|
|||||||
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
|
ELA
|
|||||||||
Grade 3
|
37.4
|
40.1
|
40.4
|
18.6
|
20.4
|
21.3
|
8.9
|
10.7
|
*
|
Grade 4
|
43.9
|
44.1
|
46.1
|
21.2
|
25.1
|
26.9
|
*
|
11.3
|
*
|
Grade 5
|
41.2
|
46.3
|
47.4
|
21.1
|
26.0
|
29.8
|
*
|
9.7
|
12.1
|
MATH
|
|||||||||
Grade 3
|
38.9
|
40.0
|
39.1
|
18.2
|
20.9
|
19.6
|
*
|
7.1
|
6.5
|
Grade 4
|
33.3
|
34.0
|
33.9
|
14.0
|
15.6
|
17.3
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
Grade 5
|
34.3
|
33.6
|
35.5
|
13.7
|
15.0
|
17.3
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
* Scores not available, as the
number of students is under 16 – BUT IF WE SEE THE PERCENT SCORING IN THE
BOTTOM THREE CATEGORIES AT PARIS ELEMENTARY (below), we can see that the missing scores
are likely to be similar to those where the scores are available.
APS staff (unwilling to tell the school board such grim news?)
offered three bullets about Paris under “Individual School Progress.” It noted
that the Median Growth Percentile (MGP) in math improved “by 8.5 points between
2017 and 2018, from 38 to 46.5.”[vi]
Yes, these are the numbers on the SPF. But did it?
And how does a 46.5%
MGP in math, a 47% MGP in ELA, and 55% MGP in English Language Proficiency
tally up to 54.8% MGP for the school,
which apparently is enough to lift Paris to an Improvement rating?
A breakdown on
PARCC/CMAS results for Paris – OVER 70% NOT EVEN APPROACHING EXPECTATIONS
The state provides more detail than just the # and % who Met or Exceeded Expectations. It actually reports the # and % of students
scoring in each of the five categories,
from lowest (Did Not Yet Meet Expectations) to highest (Exceeded Expectations).
So even without the data for the number and percentage Meeting Expectations for
many grades at Paris, when the far majority of students are scoring in the bottom
two categories, it reveals how far most students are from meeting the standards.
2018 – PARCC/CMAS – Paris Elementary
– far majority of scores in bottom two categories
% Did Not Yet Meet Expectations
|
% Partially Met Expectations
|
% Approaching Expectations
|
% Met
Expectations
|
% Exceeded Expectations
|
|
ELA
|
|||||
Grade 3
|
56.5
|
24.2
|
*
|
*
|
|
Grade 4
|
34.9
|
34.9
|
*
|
*
|
|
Grade 5
|
24.2
|
45.5
|
18.2
|
12.1
|
|
MATH
|
|||||
Grade 3
|
48.4
|
25.8
|
19.4
|
6.5
|
|
Grade 4
|
55.6
|
27.0
|
*
|
*
|
|
Grade 5
|
40.0
|
41.5
|
*
|
*
|
|
So for both ELA and Math, at least 69.7% (Grade 5, ELA) and as many as 82.6% (Grade 4, Math) of the students at
Paris SCORE in the BOTTOM TWO CATEGORIES -
a long way from reaching proficiency in these two subjects.
Paris Elementary – hardly
alone to earn an Improvement rating
with such low achievement
Paris is not the only school to receive fewer than 43%
points that is now rated on Improvement.
In Aurora, the same is true for three other schools. True as well for other Colorado
schools; I list the first dozen one finds on the state’s website–below. But Paris is a school I have followed
for several years, and I cannot see how it now deserves to be rated on Improvement. And when other schools where
student achievement remains equally troubling—far below the district average,
to say nothing of the state average—“earn” an Improvement rating, it invites questions about the validity of the
SPF itself.
Schools with less than 43 percentage points earned on the SPF, but rated
on Improvement in 2018[vii]
Denver Public Schools has its own SPF and its own (often
more rigorous) rating formula. This
sometimes leads the state to drop its final ratings for several DPS schools. Three
examples follow. The percentage points earned might have led the state to put
the school on Improvement, but DPS
was not as lenient. In the end the state SPF “Deferred to district rating” and
gave these schools a lower rating.
% points earned
|
2018 SPF
|
Notes
|
||
DPS
|
Monarch Montessori
|
42
|
Priority Improvement
|
Deferred to district rating
|
Stedman Elem.
|
42.4
|
Turnaround
|
Deferred to district rating
|
|
STRIVE-GVR
|
43
|
Priority Improvement
|
Deferred to district rating
|
Help!
I believe the Educator Accountability Act of 2009 (SB 09-163), which led to Colorado’s
School Performance Framework, has been, all in all, a positive for our state.
Selfishly, Another View has depended
heavily on Colorado’s SPF in commenting on school results; I might be compelled
to torch much of what I have written over the past ten years if I lose faith
that, more often not, it has given us valuable information. I am among
those worried that the mounting criticism of the School Performance Framework might
go too far. Far better for parents and the public see the results of an honest
effort to assess how schools like Paris Elementary and Aurora Central are doing,
than to lose hope that it is worth doing at all. Revise it, rename it, fine—but
do away with it? Give up on school accountability?
Two “major
purposes” of SB-163 included:
·
Creating a fairer, clearer and more effective
cycle of support and intervention
Although this newsletter points out what must be one
egregious error with our SPF, it is a mistake that can be fixed. If our SPF is
on thin ice, I have no desire to see it disappear.
My point is
more supportive. The SPF, like any human creation, is fallible and sometimes gets
it wrong. If the goal has been to help provide better “support and
intervention” to our lowest-performing schools and “enhance … oversight of
improvement efforts,” the SPF needs to make it clear that schools like Paris
Elementary are not doing OK. They do
not need the stamp of on Improvement.
They need help.
Addendum A
Colorado’s School
Performance Framework – 2011-2018 - Paris Elementary School
Overall rating
|
Points Earned
|
Academic Achievement
|
Academic Growth
|
Academic Growth Gaps
|
|
2011
|
Improvement Plan
|
48.4%
|
Does Not Meet
|
Approaching
|
Approaching
|
2012
|
Priority Improvement
|
42.0%
|
Does Not Meet
|
Approaching
|
Approaching
|
2013
|
Priority Improvement
|
40.5%
|
Does Not Meet
|
Approaching
|
Approaching
|
2014
|
Priority Improvement
|
33.0%
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
Does Not Meet
|
2016
|
Priority Improvement
|
37.7%
|
Does Not Meet
|
Approaching
|
No longer reported
|
2017
|
Priority Improvement
|
40%
|
Does Not Meet
|
Approaching
|
No longer reported
|
2018
|
Improvement
Plan
|
42.9%
|
Does Not Meet
|
Approaching
|
No longer reported
|
Addendum B
District Program Monitoring Report-Update Aurora International
Leadership ACTION Zone[ix]
From Section 3,
Implementation Progress - Individual School Progress – page 10
Paris:
·
“In math, Paris showed its MGP by 8.5 points
between 2016-17 and 2017-18, from 38 to 46.5.
·
“Paris is focused on building a new school
culture, as well as onboarding and capacity building of new teaching staff.
·
“Paris has been building community partnerships,
including partnering with Children’s Hospital to provide health and wellness
programming.”
From Section 6:
Goals - page 14
·
“Two schools, Crawford and Paris, improved their
overall SPF rating from Priority
Improvement to Improvement and
therefore are no longer on the State’s Accountability Clock.”
COMMENT:
As with Paris, the “progress” reported for the other schools in the
Action Zone, Aurora Central High, Aurora West, Boston K-8, and Crawford
Elementary, did not include ONE SENTENCE on academic achievement. Only a little
data—mostly improved Median Growth Percentiles. In 15 pages, the report devoted
four pages to the budget of Action
Zone work in the five schools, most of three
pages to demographics, and most of two
pages to the School Performance Framework results 2016- 2018. (Yes, I repeat
myself.[x] More troubling is that the APS staff repeats
itself, as if no one notices. Some of us do.)
Addendum C
Aurora Central High School – Achievement and Accountability
1. Is ONE LINE on academic achievement enough?
“Aurora Central High School Board Update”[i]
- presented by the principal, Gerardo De La Garza, January 9, 2019
The update pertained to the board’s decision to approve the
ACHS Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) before being submitted to CDE. No SAT or PSAT
scores, no achievement data at all, except for ONE LINE.
Principal De La Raza presented
eight slides in his presentation. They included data showing improvement on
attendance, suspensions and expulsions, graduation and dropout rates, and one graph
that emphasized how the SPF scores for the high school had grown, 2016-2018. That
graph also included an orange line on the Academic Achievement from the SPF
each of the last three years. ONE LINE.
Aurora Central High – overall SPF scores and specific Academic
Achievement scores
But did the board hear anything
about that 25% and Does Not Meet for three straight years?
No doubt the Unified Improvement
Plan itself included a more complete and self-critical examination if its
struggles to see student achievement improve. Perhaps something along the lines
of what we read in the school’s UIP from 2017:
ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT
Description: The 9th and 10th grade achievement scores, for
all disaggregated groups, are persistently below state expectations in
evidence-based reading and writing as well as math. The percentage of students
reaching proficiency is consistently below state and district averages,
resulting in a total SPF rating of “Does Not Meet.”
What is the basis
of the 7.5/30? As high schools no longer
take a PARCC test, achievement data is derived from results on the two “college
readiness” exams, the SAT and PSAT. I heard
an ACHS teacher insist that such tests are a poor way to measure academic
achievement at a high school like ACHS. I agree. But it is what we have. Shouldn’t we expect the school board to be given
these scores?
2017
|
2018
|
|||
English
|
Math
|
English
|
Math
|
|
Minimum expected for graduation*
|
470
|
500
|
470
|
500
|
ACHS
|
423.6
|
405.3
|
422.2
|
409.5
|
Below minimum
|
-46.4
|
-94.7
|
-47.8
|
-90.5
|
*Colorado
Graduation Guidelines as of 2021[xii]
Does the Aurora School Board see
this kind of data? Does it ask for it? Is the Board even interested?
All it saw earlier this month were eight slides from the principal. Not
enough, not when the school is …
2. One of
3 high schools in Colorado on YEAR 8 on the ACCOUNTABILITY CLOCK
There are only THREE Colorado
schools serving grades 9-12 on YEAR 8 in the state’s School Performance
Framework. The just released 2018 SPF
rating shows that, of those three, the Colorado high school with the fewest
percentage points earned is Aurora Central High School.
2018 – School Performance
Framework – percentage points earned:
-
Aguilar Junior-Senior High School – 41.8%
-
Adams City High – 39.5%
-
Aurora
Central High – 37.4%
[ii]
Colorado Education Initiative, https://www.coloradoedinitiative.org/grass-roots-approach-rethinking-accountability/
[iii]
AV#141–“Sherlock Holmes for Superintendent.
Curiosity–a key ingredient for better schools,” included this:
Dec. 11 - PARCC scores in Aurora – Sherlock
would take out his magnifying glass to see if ….
Six weeks later, when the
PARCC results were published, one did not expect APS leaders to be pleased. But
were they curious? Any information there
to learn from? School-by-school data to
dig into?
Chalkbeat
Colorado - Aurora: ‘We know we need to do better.’
Of the state’s top 20
districts, the troubled Aurora Public
Schools district posted the lowest scores on the PARCC tests: 20
percent of students met or exceeded expectations in language arts, and just 12
percent met those marks in math. (Jan. 2016)
[iv]
Colorado Department of Education, http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/cmas-dataandresults
[v]
Colorado Department of Education, http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/cmas-dataandresults
[vi]From
“District Program Monitoring Report-Update Aurora International Leadership
ACTION Zone,” for APS school board, Jan. 8, 2019.
[vii]
Colorado Department of Education, https://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworkresults
[viii]
Summary of SB 09-163 (Accountability Alignment) https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/accountability/downloads/updatedaccountabilityalignmentbill2pagesummary.pdf
[ix] From “District Program Monitoring
Report-Update” at the Aurora School Board meeting, Jan.8, 2019, https://www.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/B82TST6DB8AF/$file/DMR%20Zone%20Update_Follow%20up_District%20Program%20Monitoring%20Report_January%202019.pdf
[x]
From, AV#177 – “APS school board still
not being told student achievement data in Action Zone,” on the Action Zone
report to school board in January 2018:
“14 pages. Too much? Yes, when of so
little value. After ‘Background’ and ‘Program Status,’ this:
·
4 pages on
the budget
·
2 pages on
demographic data
·
1 page on
enrollment
·
2 pages on
School Performance Framework targets and results. (My version of the SPFs, p. 4, provides a new board more
context—previous years—to show how chronic the low performance has been.)
·
1 page on ‘Individual
School Progress,’ providing growth
scores (a repeat of what the previous board saw on 9/19), but no data on the
achievement results on PARCC or PSAT assessments to gauge student performance
for 2016-17. A good board understands what growth scores do not reveal.” (Emphasis mine.)
[xi] From “Aurora Central High School Board Update” at the
Aurora School Board meeting, Jan. 8, 2019, https://www.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/B82TNH6C1A9A/$file/ACHS%20BOE%20Presentation%2C%20January%208%2C%202018.pdf
