Commissioner Katy Anthes - From “State of Reopening Education in Colorado,” put on by the Colorado Education Initiative and the Colorado Children’s Campaign, Nov. 13, 2020
“We’re taking a pause on accountability this year, and we
might be taking a pause on accountability next year. That decision does still
need to be made by legislators…
“And so now is a good time to think about bold ideas about
what is the right balance … between state and local accountability.
“What does that look like?
“What does the state need to know?
“Legislators do have a right to hold us accountable.
Education is the largest budget item in the state of Colorado. We should have
some dipsticks around how we are doing as a state, or a system, and what policies
may need to change or adjust or support at the system level. Maybe we’ve
gotten that balance out of whack over time, so let’s think about what that balance
now between state accountability is - and local accountability is, and what
that can look like.”
This is my own unofficial transcript – any errors are my own. https://vimeo.com/479128702?mc_cid=a3921d47e2&mc_eid=ec856232d9 |
If we value our annual physical check-up,
why don’t schools feel that way too?
In thinking
about “that balance,” and trying to answer the question, “What does the state
need to know?”, I offer an analogy. Please forgive me if this newsletter is too
personal—inviting you to my annual physical. But for this to work I have to expose
myself. So to speak.
The state
needs to know a few key facts. Not school climate. Not how well the school is
fulfilling its distinct mission. Not how well the school communicates with
parents. Not how well teachers are mentored or evaluated. These are all
incredibly important. But
not at the state level.
Schools,
principals, teachers, and parents have a wide range of emotions about the
School Performance Framework (SPF) and the state’s accountability ratings. Top
performers are thrilled; they raise banners above the front entrance: On Performance!
Low scores stir much grousing: it’s punishment, it’s mean-spirited, it’s designed
to make us look bad. In the latter case, little buy-in (or is it denial?) can
cause a school community to ignore the facts presented to them in the SPF
reports. What does the SPF show on page 1, that only 6% of our elementary students
met expectations in math? So harsh! So unfair! Is the state trying to
persecute us?
There is
plenty of valid criticism of the SPF, I believe, much that we can do to improve
it. I will present one specific concern in my January 2021 newsletter. Here,
though, is an effort to say, quite simply, isn’t some kind of annual
check-up, by someone other than ourselves, necessary?
Few
of us are thrilled about going in for the annual physical. If you are 71, you
are certainly aware of “a few issues”—the phrase I used not long ago about my
father, then in his mid-80’s, on his visits to the doctor. What will my
own doctor see and tell me that I am not prepared for? I think I know how my
body responds to exercise … which is not how it used to… But I’m ok, aren’t I?
We cannot deny an element of … apprehension? Even fear? What
will surprise us? What don’t we
know about ourselves?
Our school looks in the mirror on a regular
basis. We might use district assessments several times a year to gauge how
students are doing, so what the state reports next August on the
Colorado Measures of Academic Progress won’t be a total surprise to us. Even
so, when August approaches we are apprehensive. Even fearful. As
teachers we might not buy into everything about the statewide tests and yet … What
don’t we know about how our students are performing? What will the
scores reveal about their growth? What will the parents, the district, the
media have to say when word gets out…?
The “scores” on my physical stay private. I am your common man, there will be no press release from my communications director: Huidekoper is fit as a (71-year-old) fiddle. Only the doctor, my computer, and I know. The next day I open my laptop and see what Kaiser calls “the test results.” I hit: “Graph of past results.” Is the pattern good or bad? Cholesterol level headed down? Blood sugar levels better this year? How’s my bone density? My PSA?
The SPF, of course, is less personal. It paints with a broad
brush when reporting average scores on the SAT. For example, at Cherry Creek
High School, taken by nearly 800 juniors, the SPF reads, average math
score: 604; Rating, Exceeds. The SPF for Simla High School is
more intimate: it shows the average in math for the 21 juniors who
took the SAT: 514; Rating, Meets. Still, in both cases, we get something
meaningful about the school’s academic performance. Something meaningful
about student achievement in reading, writing, and math.
The numbers—on the SPF, from the doctor’s office—third-party presentations that provide a few key pieces of information, an outside check on how we’re doing. Much in common, true? Not all one might want to know, but the basics. What does the state need to know? Perhaps it is enough.
Top 10 list for annual review: for our school ……………………….……for
ourselves
|
School
Performance Framework – Middle School |
Checklist/tests
doctor ordered |
1 |
Academic
Achievement – overall* |
Blood pressure |
2 |
CMAS –
English Language Arts** |
Temperature |
3 |
CMAS - Math |
Weight |
4 |
CMAS -
Science |
BMI |
5 |
Student groups for #2 - #4 above: English
Learners, FR Lunch, Minority Students, Students w/ Disabilities |
Pulse |
6 |
Academic
Growth – overall* |
Cholesterol,
HDL, non-HDL* |
7 |
CMAS -
English Language Arts |
Complete Blood Count with Differential |
8 |
CMAS - Math |
Comprehensive
Metabolic Panel |
9 |
Student groups for #7 & # 8 above:
English Learners, FR Lunch, Minority Students, Students w/ Disabilities |
Lipid Panel |
10 |
English Language Proficiency/On Track to
Proficiency |
Prostate Specific
Antigen (PSA) |
|
*Results reported: % pts earned and Rating (Exceeds,
Meets, Approaching, Does Not Meet); **CMAS: Mean Scale Score, % Rank, and Rating |
*Example: My value - xx mgm/dl
and standard range (e.g. 0–199 mgm/dl) |