Part 2 on Less is More. What is essential?

Why we need to focus on math achievement

How might the principle of LESS IS MORE apply to one large school district? To one academic discipline? One most of us (remember the 3 R’s?) consider essential? Basic.

Case in point: Aurora Public Schools and Mathematics. See Addendum A.

In 2019, on the math portion of the CMAS, the state assessment, less than one-fifth of Aurora students in grades 3-8, 18.2%, met expectations. The state average – only 34.7% [i]of students met expectations in math that spring—is troubling enough, but in APS the average score was 16.5 percentage points lower.

Addendum B: Two reasons a school board might not know how dire the facts are for so many of its schools

My LESS IS MORE recommendation for such a district: make improvement in math instruction and achievement a priority.

To be consistent with LESS IS MORE, let’s be more specific. Focus this work on those elementary schools and K-8 programs where 20% or fewer students are meeting expectations in math – as is the case in at least 25 APS schools (see page 2). Acknowledge that such low performance reveals they need greater support to improve math instruction. These schools no doubt have a wide variety of needs (four are on Priority Improvement; schools like Kenton, Sixth Ave., Montview, Paris, and Altura, where fewer than 10% of students are proficient in a core subject, were somehow granted an Improvement rating[ii]). ALL OF THEM need better math results. Getting at the root causes will require serious discussion. Tough questions about the curriculum, instruction, time … searching for a more effective approach.

“Let’s get back to the fundamental things.” Bonnie Raitt

In June a high school teacher in Denver told Colorado Public Radio’s Jenny Brundin that DPS schools “now don’t have the ability to provide even the basics. ‘Our school,’ he told her, ‘no longer has a full-time social worker. Our school no longer has a full-time nurse.’”

I appreciate why a caring teacher would see a social worker and nurse as one of the basics. But without, I hope, sounding cold-hearted, may I point out that learning math is one of the basics, too?

And yet this is not happening in an even remotely satisfactory way in many APS schools. (Aurora is merely one example; see page 4 for other districts exhibiting equally low math achievement.)

The current situation demands that we think hard about what is most essential, and focus on that.

Readers of Another View know that this former English teacher and writer puts reading and writing first; they have been the focus of many newsletters. But a close look at the results in a number of districts and schools tells us that math, too, must be a priority. Sounds, well, pretty basic.

Addendum A

Why improved math instruction/curriculum ought to be

a priority for 25 elementary and K-8 schools

MATH – Under 20% meeting expectations on the state assessment

% of students meeting expectations on MATH portion of the 2019 CMAS[iii]

	% Meeting Expectations	% Growth	% FREE & REDUCED LUNCH[iv]
STATE	34.7	50	40.7
APS – District	18.2	51	66

APS Elementary
% meeting expectations under 20%
Iowa	18.6	53.5	71
Elkhart	18.4	56	95
Jewell	17.9	58	75
Arkansas	16.3	60	74
Peoria	16.2	37	96

% meeting expectations under 15%
Lyn Knoll	13.9	43	93
Crawford*	13.1	41	95
Fulton Academy	12.7	60.5	91
Virginia Court	12.2	51	86
Sable	11.3	42	92
Park Lane	10.7	46	85

% meeting expectations under 10%
Kenton	9.8	44	92
Lansing	9.5	58	85
Laredo	7.5	38.5	91
Sixth Ave.	7.4	53.5	92
Montview	7.3	50	90
Paris*	6.4	66	96
Fletcher Community School	5.9	42	90
Altura	5.2	35	92

APS – K-8/K-12 Schools
% meeting expectations under 20%
Vanguard Classical East (K-12)	18.5	36	50
AXL Academy (K-8)	15.8	54.5	73
Vanguard Classical West (K-8)	15.4	59	66
Edna & John W. Mosley K-8	12.7	41	65
Clyde Miller K-8	11.4	47	69
Boston K-8*	9.9	50	95

*These three schools are part of the district’s ACTION ZONE (along with Aurora West College Preparatory and Aurora Central). Given the poor results in this key discipline at these three schools, more reason to question the district’s ACTION ZONE strategy.

Another way to show the critical need for more focus on math instruction in these schools.

The state breaks down how students score on CMAS MATH into five categories:

1. Percent Did Not Yet Meet Expectations (LOWEST)

2. Percent Partially Met Expectations (SECOND LOWEST)

3. Percent Approached Expectations______________________

4. Percent Met Expectations

5. Percent Exceeded Expectations (HIGHEST)

Long-Term Consequences

for Unfinished Math Learning

“The majority of students who are behind in math in elementary school stay behind in middle and high school, with the students farthest off-track the least likely to catch up.

“The Grade Level Expectations Trap,” Education Next, Summer 2020.[v]

The low percentage of students in or near the bottom 10 schools on page 2 is even more worrisome when we see the percentage of their 4^th graders scoring in the lowest (Did Not Yet Meet) or second lowest (Partially Met) categories, and thus well short of proficiency.

It will take exceptional effort to help these boys and girls meet expectations by the time they reach high school. It can only happen with a tremendous focus on good math instruction.

(See box - and the revealing chart in Endnotes.)

4^th graders at these ten APS schools – 2019 CMAS results[vi]

	Percent Did Not Yet Meet Expectations	Percent Partially Met Expectations	Met or Exceeded Expectations
Fulton Academy	33.3	29.5	12.8
Virginia Court	31.9	34.7	12.5
Park Lane	40.4	38.6	7.0
Lansing	36.7	36.7	6.7
Kenton	45.6	38.9	5.6
Laredo	44.3	27.8	5.1
Sixth Ave.	43.8	36.3	5.0
Montview	33.3	39.4	6.1
Paris	49.2	34.9	N.A.
Altura	51.6	33.7	N.A.

Astonishing. Even frightening. Over 60% of 4^th graders in these 10 schools scored in the bottom two categories—from 62.8% at Fulton Academy to 84.1% at Paris and 85.3% at Altura Elementary.

If equity is so central to other discussions …

The APS June 16 board discussion of Blueprint APS began with questions about equity. Superintendent Rico Munn asserted that “equity has been at the center of the conversation around Blueprint from day one.” Board members often stress how important equity is to them. They might focus on this:

CMAS – Math – 2019 – % of APS students meeting expectations by race/ethnicity

	Grade 4	Grade 8
Black	15.4	16.2
Hispanic	11.2	13.9
White	35.7	37.9

But APS is doing better, true?

Isn’t it true, though, that APS has shown better CMAS math results for the elementary grades the past three years? Yes, overall, a slight improvement. The district’s CMAS Mean Scale Scores are up, from 718.2 (2017) to 719.7 (2018) to 721.6 (2019). As are the percentile rank scores, up from 13 (2017) to 16 (2018) to 19 (2019).

Granted, overall, better. But of course, not good. For over 200,000 elementary students across the state, the mean scale score is 737.4.* Furthermore, the scores for the 25 schools on page 2 are nowhere close to satisfactory. Dramatic growth is needed if their students are to enter high school at grade level. Growth of the kind seen at several other schools in Aurora: 65% or better. *http://www.cde.state.co.us/code/accountability-dataexplorertool.

Better news in schools elsewhere in the district – lessons to share?

4 Elementary or K-8 programs in Aurora where CMAS scores exceeded the state average. The district might wish to learn more about the instruction and curriculum in these schools. What is different there? Strategies that lower-performing APS schools would do well to adopt?

MATH- CMAS[vii]	% Meeting Expectations	% Growth	% FREE & REDUCED LUNCH[viii]
STATE	34.7	50	40.7
APS Elementary or K-8
Aurora Quest K-8	88.8	65	27
Murphy Creek K-8	47.7	68.5	36
Rocky Mountain Prep – Fletcher Campus	46.7	Missing (new school)	85
Aurora Frontier K-8	46.3	69	32

MATH- CMAS[ix]	Mean Scale Score (Elem)	Percentile Rank
STATE	737.4
APS Elementary Scores	721.6	19

Aurora Quest K-8	778.4	99
Rocky Mountain Prep – Fletcher Campus	749.2	80
Murphy Creek K-8	746	74
Aurora Frontier K-8	742.5	67

APS is hardly the only district that might do well to focus on math

Of course Aurora Public Schools is not the only Colorado district revealing such low math achievement. Here are four other districts that might also do well to make improvement in math a priority. In 2018-19, growth scores on math in APS were average (51); in these four districts, growth was even lower.

MATH- CMAS[x]	% Meeting Expectations	% Growth	% FREE & REDUCED LUNCH (2018-19)[xi]
STATE	34.7	50	40.7[xii]
Pueblo 60	19.6	42	80
Mapleton	18.6	46	57
Westminster	16.4	47	79
Adams 14	13.4	46	84

Addendum B

Two reasons a school board might not know

how dire the facts are for so many of its schools

1) What the district has told the board – Is it hearing the full story? (AV #177[xiii] redux)

I apologize if I missed it, but the information I displayed on page 2, 2019 CMAS math scores for 25 APS schools, has not—from what I can discover—been presented to the Aurora Board of Education this year.

Aug. 20, 2019 - APS Board of Education meeting. The 22-page power-point presentation, Student Achievement and Growth Results[xiv], packed in a lot of data. The headings insisted on a positive message. The data confirmed some “good news.” But of the most troubling results, in 25 schools, hardly a word.

Slide 7 – 2018-19 CMAS-Math. Sub-heading:

Across all Math tests, APS students gained 1.5 percentage points from previous year.

Slide 8 – CMAS – ELA and Math. In bold:

Positive trends can be seen across student cohorts and years

Slide 12 – District-Level CMAS Growth. Bullets, in part:

… Math Growth increased two points to 51.0

Across the four years of Growth, ... Math is up 5 points

The board might have asked what growth is needed to see 4^th graders (slide 7-only 17% proficient) improve enough to “meet expectations” by the time they enter high school. Math Growth of 51 won’t do, as the district knows full well. See its 2019-20 Unified Improvement Plan: “In order to boost achievement over time, APS is seeking to increase our MGP in math to 65.0 MGP in the 2019-2020 school year.”[xv])

Slide 14 - School-level Growth. Bullets:

17 schools have growth of 50.0 or above on both [ELA and Math]

Notable School Growth across both ELA/Math

Top Schools by subject

The board might have asked, at that point, is this the full story? (Among Slide 14’s “top schools” for growth in math: Paris Elementary. Yes, growth was 66%, but why? Because 4.2% proficient in 2018 "rose" to 6.4% in 2019. See Endnote ii.)

On Aug. 20, 2019, then, nowhere in 22 pages a hint about a truly profound problem for 25 APS schools.

Sept. 3, 2019 - APS Board of Education meeting. The presentation on the results of 2019 CMAS assessments included the state’s Preliminary 2019 District Performance Framework[xvi]. On page 2 of that 6-page accountability report from the Colorado Department of Education, board members could find, if they looked closely, under Academic Achievement at the elementary level:

721.6 Mean Scale Score - Percentile Rank – 19

That is one fact that AV #212 uses as well. But board members might not have appreciated what those low numbers implied about the 25 schools that scored well below the district average. I hope page 2 here provides more clarity. (Note–mean scale score: Altura: 703.9; Paris: 705.5; percentile rank for both: 1%.)

From that September meeting on through June, I find no evidence that the district alerted the Board of Education to the widespread low achievement in math. A diligent board member might have noticed this one nugget on page 25 of the District Unified Improvement Plan, shared at its December meetings.

Priority Performance Challenges and Root Causes Priority Performance Challenge:

Low Academic and Growth Performance in English Language Arts and Math State assessment results show persistently low academic achievement and low growth in math and English language arts across all grade levels.[xvii]

Other than that, for nine months, almost nothing on an issue fundamental to the district’s mission, to “accelerate learning for all students to develop the knowledge, skills, and character necessary to shape successful futures.”

More fundamental, I believe, than many items that the board did address. Such as Blueprint APS. No comment here on the substance of Blueprint, but please note how central it has been. Time well spent?

2) What the district has asked the board and the community to focus on—Blueprint APS—leading to exactly what? At the June 16 board meeting, a no vote and a postponement.

APS board meetings have returned to Blueprint APS time and again these past six months. Many resources devoted to the future, to the unknowns about enrollment, to buildings—close? merge? “repurpose”? District administrators and school board members will say such study is “forward-thinking,” “being responsible stewards of the facilities,” etc. OK. Not unimportant. But compare the time spent on this look ahead with the lack of focus on a more fundamental duty to students currently enrolled?

Jan. 7 - Blueprint APS Regional Design Team Update – 4 pages

Feb. 4 - Blueprint APS Regional Design Team Update – 13 pages

March 3 - Blueprint APS Regional Design Team Update – 6 pages

[Community Open House at three schools in February and March – feedback on five community-developed scenarios]

April 21 – APS Next Strategic Plan – 12 pages

- Blueprint APS – from Superintendent Rico Munn – 5 pages

May 12 – April 2020 Enrollment Update and Blueprint APS Charge 2 – 29 pages

May 26 – Blueprint APS Phase 3 Charge #1 Specializations - 34 pages

- LRFAC Reasoning Around Recommendations (7 Regions) – 4 pages

- APS Regional Specialization Overview - 84 pages

[June 2 - APS BOE Virtual Town Hall]

June 16 – The Board of Education is asked to motion on Top Specialization Recommendation.

Agenda indicated Estimated time for discussion: 1 minute. Discussion lasted over 65 minutes. One board member noted: “We’ve been doing this (Blueprint APS) for two-and-a-half years.” Another board member said: “It has been a big undertaking.” Both were among the 5 who voted no, and thus the motion failed. On the proposal to postpone further discussion and any decision on Blueprint APS until late August or early September, board voted in favor, 7-0.

The idea that less is more will look different for each district and school. For APS, why not less time devoted to Blueprint, and more attention to what is basic to a sound education?

Endnotes

colorado-is-cracking-down-on-reading-curriculum-heres-how-denvers-made-the-cut). Such focus is warranted. Soon, however, the state might need to bring a similar attention to the way our schools of education teach mathematics and to the criteria districts and schools use in adopting math curriculum.

[ii] In AV #199 I questioned how Paris Elementary could possibly have “earned’ a rating of IMPROVEMENT in 2019, given its CMAS results.

Another View has studied Paris Elementary School since 2015. Chalkbeat Colorado’s snapshot for 2019 reads:

Literacy - % Met or Exceeded Expectations 6.7

Math - % Met or Exceeded Expectations 6.4

Literacy Growth 38.5

Math Growth 66

Please stare at those achievement results. A school that has earned our second highest SPF rating? Look at the ELA and MATH scores over the past two years. How does that 66 in Math Growth look now?

	2018	2019	2018	2019
	Percent of students meeting or exceeding expectations		Number of students meeting or exceeding expectations
ELA	9.9%	6.7%	19	11 – out of 164 tested
MATH	4.2%	6.4%	8	11 – out of 171 tested

http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/cmas-dataandresults-2019

So 11 out of 171 Paris Elementary students who took the CMAS Math in 2019 scored high enough to meet or exceed expectations. All of 3 more students than in 2018. And yet the school’s Math Growth score (which only includes progress from grade 3 to grade 4, and from grade 4 to 5) is well above average – 66.

[iii] https://co.chalkbeat.org/2019/8/15/21121752/find-your-2019-colorado-cmas-scores-and-compare-schools#content

[iv] http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/rvprioryearpmdata from there go to 2018-19 Pupil Membership, and from there to 2018-19 K-12 Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility by School (XLSX)

[v] https://www.educationnext.org/grade-level-expectations-trap-how-lockstep-math-lessons-leave-students-behind/

[vi] http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/cmas-dataandresults-2019

[vii] https://co.chalkbeat.org/2019/8/15/21121752/find-your-2019-colorado-cmas-scores-and-compare-schools#content

[viii] http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/rvprioryearpmdata from there go to 2018-19 Pupil Membership, and from there to 2018-19 K-12 Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility by School (XLSX)

[ix] From individual Final 2019 School Performance Framework for each school. http://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/performance

[x] https://co.chalkbeat.org/2019/8/15/21121752/find-your-2019-colorado-cmas-scores-and-compare-schools#content

[xi] http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/rvprioryearpmdata from there go to 2018-19 Pupil Membership, and from there to 2018-19 PK-12 Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility by District (XLSX)

[xii] CDE News Release on 2018-19 data - http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/2018-19pupilenrollmentcountpressrelease

[xiii] “APS school board still not being told student achievement data in ACTION Zone,” Another View #177, March 13, 2018.

[xiv]https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/BF2MY95D70B4/$file/BOE%20Student%20Achievement%20Data_8.20.19.pdf)