AV #221 - School accountability - and our annual physical: did we pass?

 

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)