Monday, December 13, 2021

AV#240 - Preface to a series of newsletters on Class Size and Teacher Workload

 

Part #1

For several months Another View will focus on a single issue, one of huge importance to teachers and students, but one that receives little attention from policymakers, district leaders, and the media.

The issue: class size and teacher workload. My newsletters will address various perspectives on this issue. We will hear from teachers, parents, and students. We will look at the research (including 2021 Nobel Prize winners). If this introduction is at all persuasive, I hope a number of readers will follow this series: each month a newsletter, a maximum (I promise) of 5 pages. Perhaps an 8-minute read. Current plan: January: what teachers say; February, the research; March, policy in place - alas, in other states.                                                                                          

“Class size” is the term that often covers the topic. But one must add “teacher workload.” (See Addendum A.: Defining our terms.) This long-time middle and high school English teacher is stunned and disheartened to continue to hear of Colorado high schools where a class sizes of 34 – times FIVE CLASSES A DAY – means teachers are expected to meet the needs of 170 students. I consider this outrageous (“going beyond all standards of what is right and decent,” Webster’s[i]). We must address it. The elementary teacher with 34 students is overburdened, too. At all grade levels, this must change.

 

Colorado

Pupil Teacher FTE Ratio[ii]

2018-19 – 17.3

2019-20 – 17.1

2020-21 – 16.6

Such numbers are not the case in every district and school in our state. But they are common enough to demand our attention. If this series does nothing else, I hope it encourages a closer study of what class size and teacher workload truly look like in our schools. On this matter, I have found few K-12 public schools to be transparent (see AV#214 - Sept. 2020[iii]). And we know—or we should know—that the Colorado Department of Education’s account, “Student Teacher Ratios” (16.6:1 - see box), bears no connection to average class size and, most critically, for grades 7-12, to a teacher’s workload. 1:16.6, a teacher asks? As if!

 

National reports are only slightly more accurate in capturing what class sizes look like in Colorado. See Addendum B.

 

Are we helpless? Will this series simply be a protest, without any solutions?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (All bold mine)

One teacher I met with spoke of the troubling teacher-student ratios at her Denver high school: Three of her colleagues have 135, 148, and 155 students in their five classes. This teacher sounded confused and helpless on this issue. Who has the power, she wondered, to bring these numbers down?  

Covid and Class Size

Learning loss. Disengaged students. Mental and emotional health.

Of course K-12 education has other priorities right now. But as we try to “reimagine” the schools we want to see post-pandemic, I am glad to see leaders recognize the connection, stressing smaller classes as a way forward. Especially for those students who have lost so much.

“How COVID-19 may change the conversation about class size”[iv]

   “… new federal relief funding may give school districts the opportunity to fulfill long-desired aims to reduce the numbers of students in classes, a new review of state policies by the National Council on Teacher Quality said.

  Targeted class size policies, such as those for core academic courses, high poverty schools or English learners, may yield more support for students most impacted by pandemic hardships, rather than system-wide class reductions, wrote Patricia Saenz-Armstrong, a senior economist with NCTQ.

  “Pandemic-forced virtual learning, cohorting and social distancing will add another layer to the long-standing debate about how big classes should be and even whether to focus on class sizes, student-teacher ratios or another metric to ensure student needs are met.”                                                            (Bold mine)

     “I don’t know how we would make them smaller if we could.  Voters [would] need to approve if it is funding.   

     “To me, it’s not just a principal’s responsibility.  

     “It’s not just a parent’s responsibility.

     “It’s not just the union’s responsibility.

     “Who can ever change this? It’s just lost in the bureaucracy.”

I am determined to make the case that we are not helpless. There are steps we can take—if we accept, as I believe, the large teacher workload in too many of our schools is wrong and must not continue. Ideas for state policy will appear later in this series. First, however, I need to answer the essential question: why should class size and teacher workload be a priority for Colorado? 

How this issue is of professional interest. And why it is personal.

From 1990-1996 a major reform effort I followed here in Colorado, as a foundation program officer, sought fundamental changes in how high schools were structured. The foundation supported the Coalition of Essential Schools’ work in six Colorado high schools: Horizon High School (Adams 12), Sky View (Mapleton), Pueblo County (Pueblo 70), Fort Lupton High, Pagosa Springs High, and Roaring Fork High. One of the nine principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES), presumably a goal for these six schools and approximately 1,000 others[v] across the nation that joined the Coalition, asserted:

                                        Personalization

Teaching and learning should be personalized to the maximum feasible extent. Efforts should be directed toward a goal that no teacher have direct responsibility for more than 80 students in the high school and middle school and no more than 20 in the elementary school.[vi]

Achieving that goal of 1:80 in these six schools proved hard or impossible. It is where I first became aware of the huge teacher workloads in a number of Colorado schools[vii]). Some good efforts were made. At Pagosa Springs High: “The average teaching load decreased from 125 students per teacher under the traditional schedule to 70 with blocks (1992-1993).”[viii] I visited a class at Horizon High where the veteran English teacher sent half of her 34 students to the library that day so she could have a strong seminar with the 17 remaining; she would reverse that the next day. A nifty strategy, but not a compromise any teacher should be forced to make.    

My files on class size/teacher workload go back to the mid-1990’s. I have added ever since; these files are now bulging. Much of what you will see in Another View comes from 25-plus years of material. Will the articles, insights, and research I share be dated? If the issue had gone away, perhaps. I fear it has merely been swept under the rug.

For here we are in 2021, with teachers telling us of their 170 students.

I do not believe any “silver bullet” will transform public schools. However – call me crazy, say I am obsessed with this one issue – I happen to think class size and the teacher workload is related to:

·        Student achievement                                                                                    

·        Student social-emotional well-being

·        Student engagement

·        School culture and climate

·        The ability of students to develop strong relationships with teachers

·        Teacher satisfaction

·        Teacher retention/turnover


·        Teacher shortage


·        Parental support


·        School improvement

I am convinced each is affected by demanding too much of our teachers. As we do when the class size and a teacher’s workload are too large.

 

COVID and Class Size

Districts look to hire more teachers, cut class size to make up for what COVID-19 took”[ix]  

in the tiny Monte Vista School District in southern Colorado, the focus will be on hiring teachers and reducing class sizes for a better learning experience.

   The Westminster district will “hire 50 more teachers … ‘The smaller class sizes will make it possible for teachers to help kids who are struggling and need more assistance,’” said Sandra Nees, chief financial officer.


“How DPS is spending $205M in funding[x]

"Denver’s Newlon Elementary School is using its share of federal coronavirus relief dollars to keep class sizes small and ensure students have access to mental health providers.”

 

Deep in my bones - my lived experience

I add a more personal note to explain why I feel this issue deep in my bones, why I am so alarmed by what I see regarding class size and teacher workload in many of our public schools. These two factors played no small part of my own professional journey, and why I have concluded they are critical for schools, teachers, and students to succeed.

First teaching job: middle school (6-9), four classes, none larger than 14. A total of 56 or so students. 8 advisees. Private school.

Second teaching job: high school, five classes, average 22 each, 110 students. Many semesters doing hall, library, or lunch room “duty” one “free period,” leaving me only one planning period. Public school.

Third teaching job: high school, four classes, none larger than 16.  A total of 60 or so students. 10 advisees. Private school.

Fourth and fifth jobs – Colorado – K-8 schools. Four classes of 20-23 students. Less than 90 students. Public and parochial.

That second teaching job, in a consolidated high school serving four communities in Vermont, was extremely fulfilling, but I could not sustain it. Yes, I taught English (i.e., reading and writing – more on that in #241) and coached two varsity sports as well, but I did that at my next high school, too, my third job. But at that latter school, given the smaller classes and the total number of students I was expected to know and serve well, I could manage. A number of faculty members taught there for over three decades.

I have enormous respect for Colorado teachers who can meet with 170 students every day and, against the odds, do well by every one of them. Still, I trust we can agree that this is not “best practice.”

But that is insufficient. We place too great a burden on teachers when we ask them to teach so many students. Everything in my teaching life says that this is malpractice. It is unfair. It must change. 

 

                                                                     Addendum A: Defining our terms                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       (Bold mine)

1.     Pupil-Teacher Ratio is not the Average Class Size

 

FromNCPEA POLICY BRIEF - CLASS-SIZE POLICY: THE STAR EXPERIMENT AND RELATED CLASS-SIZE STUDIES,” by Charles Achilles, National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Oct. 2012.*

Differing Definitions that Affect Conclusions: Class Size vs. Pupil-Teacher Ratio

Since the early 1900s class-size studies in the United States and elsewhere have shown positive benefits for students and teachers. Yet class size in the early grades is still debated and is not a predominant national policy. The debate is fueled in part by confusion over how students and teachers are counted.

[Achilles explains there is a significant difference between Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) and Class Size.] “On average, the difference between these two calculations in American elementary schools is about 10 students.”

Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) is “the number of students in a school or district compared to the number of teaching professionals.” Often all educators are part of the computation, including counselors and administrators. PTR is a formula and process for equitable allocation of resources important to administrators, policy persons, and others.

Class Size is “the number of students for whom a teacher is primarily responsible during a school year.” Class size is an organizing tool for providing instructional and education services to clients.

Average Class Size is the sum of all students regularly in each teacher’s class divided by the actual number of regular teachers in those specific classes. If four second grade classrooms have 14, 16, 18, 18 (n=65) students, the average, (not actual) second grade class size is 16.25 (or 16). *https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540485.pdf


2.     Average Class Size does not reveal a Teacher’s Workload

From “Reducing Class Size: What Do We Know,” National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum and Assessment, U.S. Department of Education, May 1998.*

When is Reduction Not a Reduction”

       (Explains key difference between class size and a teacher’s workload.)      

 

   “Reducing class size does not necessarily reduce the teacher’s workload, or even the number of students they teach each day. If a teacher is assigned to teach more classes because the number of students in each class is reduced, the teacher spends more time teaching and has no fewer students… The common assumption is that smaller classes allow teachers to increase the time devoted to each student, either individually or in smaller groups, and thereby improve the quality of the students’ education. If this assumption is true, successful class size reduction programs will have to attend to the impact on teachers’ workloads."

*https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED420108.pdf

 

Addendum B – National Report - Colorado and U.S. 

The National Center for Education Statistics, the gold standard for many on school data, lists the national “average class size” and the average for each state. This is from its most recent study, for 2017-18.* 

 

Primary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools

 

Average class size for teachers in self-contained classes

Average class size for teachers in departmenta-lized instruction

Average class size for teachers in self-contained classes

Average class size for teachers in departmenta- lized instruction

Average class size for teachers in self-contained classes

Average class size for teachers in departmenta-lized instruction

United States

20.9

26.2

16.6

24.9

16.3

23.3

Colorado

22.8

23.1

21.0

25.8

18.4

24.3

Colorado compared to national average

+4.4

+.9

+2.1

+1.0

*https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/tables/ntps1718_fltable06_t1s.asp

These figures are closer to the reality for schools and teachers in our state than CDE’s pupil-teacher numbers. If accurate, this would suggest middle and high school teachers in Colorado are not seeing classes much larger than is the national average. If they teach five classes a day, as part of an English, History, Science, or Math Department, they are “only” seeing about (5 x 25) 125 students.

 But consider how even these figures understate what teachers tell us. 140, 150, 160, 170….

 

Endnotes



[i] Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

[iii] AV#214 - Two key factors affecting recruitment, retention, and how teachers feel about the profession: Time and Class Size. More important than the pay check?

A.      What the Colorado Department of Education tells us on class size. (It doesn’t. Teacher-student ratio ≠ class size.)

B.      What Denver Public Schools tells us on average class size. (Nothing.)

C.      The numbers our high schools tell us, celebrating their success. (But not a word on class size.)

D.      A parent’s struggle to find the average class size of his/her child’s school.

[iv] K-12 Dive, by Kara Arundel, Oct. 18, 2021, https://www.k12dive.com/news/how-covid-19-may-change-the-conversation-about-class-sizes/608368/.

[vii] Baseline Report on Use of Nine Common Principles at Skyview High School, 1993. Colorado Department of Education. “A major source of concern among Skyview teachers is the school’s schedule which produces teaching loads of up to 150 students… At Skyview, teachers have six periods a day four days a week – and on one of those days, they must teach a seventh period. it is, in the words of one administrator, ‘a killer schedule’ as far as teachers are concerned. ‘People call it the schedule from hell,’ he said. ‘Four years ago, I had 125 kids, but this year, with the floating seventh period, I have 171 kids,’ one teacher said. ‘This schedule may be beneficial to kids in that they have more choices, but it’s not beneficial to them in terms of personalization.'" 

[viii] From draft of evaluation of Re:Learning in Colorado, “Pagosa Springs Report, conducted by InSites, submitted to the Gates Family Foundation,” July 12, 1996, page 17.

[ix]Can millions in federal money help Colorado schools address pandemic-fueled learning loss?,” by John Aguilar, The Denver Post, Aug. 21, 2021,  https://www.denverpost.com/2021/08/21/coronavirus-learning-loss-schools-colorado-esser-federal-money/

[x] How DPS is spending $205M,” by Melanie Asmar, Chalkbeat Colorado, https://www.pressreader.com/usa/daily-camera-boulder/20210825/282252373617071.

Monday, October 18, 2021

AV#238 - $130 million for the new Montbello High – Will we have a school design worthy of the price?

 

An imaginary conversation with an anonymous member of the district team


From AV #224                                                                                                                    Feb. 4, 2021

DPS should not be in charge of designing

a new comprehensive high school for Montbello 

… I wish to point out three reasons why Denver should not assume this responsibility. Why, to be more importunate, I will argue that it has not proved itself capable of leading such work. I will show why, for the sake of the Montbello community and future MHS students, another entity needs to guide this critical effort.

        AV #225- “Recreate Montbello” – Nostalgia? Amnesia? A few reminders (Feb. 9)

        AV #226 – Doublespeak from DPS – Unification is Closure (Feb. 17)


District Official (DO): We did not appreciate your newsletters arguing that our district is incapable of designing the new high school at Montbello. I especially took offense at the suggestion that we should look to an outside entity to manage this process. 

Another View (AV): I wrote: “DPS has not created a high-quality secondary school serving a majority of low-income students in this century. (The last high school opened by the district—and a proven success? Perhaps the Denver School of the Arts in 1991.)” Isn’t that true?

DO: Your evidence?

AV: One piece of evidence is your district’s School Performance Framework. The most recent one - 2019.

DO: How’s that?

AV: Look at the top schools. Distinguished - 11. Meet Expectations: 63. That is 74 out of 205 schools. What do you notice of the top 50 schools? Is there one comprehensive high school?

DO: No.

AV: What else?

DO: Many charters. 11 DSST schools: 5 high and 6 middle. KIPP: 1 high, 1 middle. STRIVE: 1 middle school.[i]

AV: Percentage points earned at all 14 on the SPF: 61.8% to 95.4%. Designed by the district?

DO: Well, no. But we did approve of their opening.  

AV: Sure, but do we see any district-created secondary schools at all in the top 50?

DO: McAuliffe International School. Grades 6-8. #3 in top 50. Denver School of the Arts, too. #14.

AV: As I wrote, it has been three decades since DSA opened. A magnet school. Hardly open to all. Only 10% low-income students. As for McAuliffe, true, but consider the percentage of low-income students.

 For 2018-19 (same year as SPF)[ii]

Free

Reduced

Free or Reduced Lunch

  #3 - McAuliffe International

15

3

18%

#14 - Denver School of the Arts

7

3

10%

 DO: Why such attention to the FRL figures?

AV: Again, it is crucial to my point: not one “high-quality secondary school serving a majority of low-income students.” Given the fall 2000 figures for the three schools to be “reunified” in Montbello High, it might see an FRL rate of 88%.[iii] Similar to Abraham Lincoln, the most chronically low-performing comprehensive high school in the city. On the state’s accountability clock since 2014.[iv] Attempting its own “redesign”: the latest plan is to be a College and Career Academy. The new Montbello is also likely to match the high percentage of English Learners at Abraham Lincoln, 56%, in 2020.[v]

 

FRL Rate 

Fall 2020[vi]

Denver’s School Performance Framework - 2019[vii]

% Points

Rating

North

69%

40.5

Accredited on Watch

Abraham Lincoln

87%

40

Accredited on Watch

Dr. MLK Jr. Early College

78%

36.7

Accredited on Priority Watch

DCIS at Montbello

80%

36.2

Accredited on Priority Watch

Collegiate Prep Academy

88%

35.7

Accredited on Priority Watch

Manual

76%

29.5

Accredited on Probation

John Kennedy

73%

27.5

Accredited on Probation

 If this is how you judge your own high schools whose demographics are remotely like the new Montbello, not one gives you, or any of us, the model of an effective school design. So where do you look?

DO: We look to the community. Which will make this different. By the way, I found your comment about the community’s role in developing our new high school pretty harsh. In fact, tone deaf.

AV: What was that?

DO: You suggested that the district was too eager to listen to the community in designing the school. Shouldn’t parents there have a voice? It sounded like you were wanted to discount the ability of families there to provide meaningful input.  

AV: Did I? Not my intention. Input, of course. But I asked.

What does a “community-driven design process” mean? Can you a name a great school designed this way? (Trying to please everyone? No clear mission?)   

DO: But why so dismissive of the community? Isn’t this exactly what led to much of the mistrust and anger over the closure of Montbello ten years ago? Shutting out the voice of the people most affected, parents and students? Many there are still furious about all that. This time we’re making an effort. 

AV: I see that. And if you want to tell me the district today is more determined to really listen, I get that too. But your district’s own words appear to say something else. Two examples:                    (Bold mine)

 

Oct. 20, 2020: “The vision, mission, and overall school design will be co-created with the community and new high school principal and feeder middle school principal once they are hired.” Re imagine                Reimagine Montbello: Oct. 21 Meeting - Questions and Answers.”[viii]

 

March 5, 2021: “The design process will be initiated and led by community members in collaboration with our district partners. The school leader, district staff, and community members are committed to implementing a high-quality school that embraces the experiences, heritage of the community, and uses a comprehensive approach to learning.”[ix] 

Letter to Far Northeast Community, from DR. SHERI CHARLES and

DR. ANTOINETTE HUDSON, Regional Instructional Superintendents 

DO: And you have a problem with that?

 

From The Death of Expertise, by Tom Nichols

“As the writer Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in 2010, large organizations do not make decisions by polling everyone in them, no matter how democratic it might seem.”

AV: I do. Can you name any great school that was designed this way? Public or private? Moms and Dads do not have this expertise. They haven’t spent years studying high schools—digging into what has proven most critical for a good mission, how to create a strong culture, how to define a teacher’s job, what should be taught—or how it should be taught. All of that demands the best we know about a strong school design.

DO: What do you propose for that? Are we back to turning this over to the “experts,” whoever they are?

 AV: “Turn over”? No, but look outside, beyond DPS. A former member of the school board asked me about this too. Who does this sort of work? Who has this figured out? I don’t know either. But search far and wide. I mentioned two groups that have learned a great deal about good efforts in high schools set in low-income communities: Mass Insight and the University of Virginia’s School Turnaround Specialist Programs, both involved with several Colorado high schools.[x]

DO: You might not know that we’ve hired the principals to lead the new high school and middle school. Don’t they bring that expertise to these design teams? Good people. Really committed to this community.

AV: I’m sure they are. But hardly the leaders who will come in with new insights and fresh ideas of what a good high school might look like. Not likely to inspire any of this “reimagining” you all keep referring to.

from Neisa Lynch Community Presentation 

“The work we have done at Collegiate Prep Academy has led to high levels of success for students in the Montbello community and I would like to expand upon this work on a larger scale so that all kids in Montbello experience that same success.”[xi]                       (Emphasis mine)

from Julio Contreras Video Presentation

 We need a middle school in Montbello that will provide the thorough preparation for them to go into high school and be successful and thrive and be able to graduate and go into the college of their choice and graduate from college.”[xii]

DO: Why do you say that?                                                

AV: Well, who did your district choose as principals for Montbello High and Montbello Middle? 

DO: The heads of DCIS at Montbello and of Collegiate Preparatory Academy.

AV: Leading these schools since 2018, yes? This is change? An inside job, true? Both schools struggled before they arrived. Most graduates are not “college ready.”[xiii] At present, both schools are rated on Priority Watch (see p. 2). Any evidence of real progress since 2019?[xiv] I can cheer what these leaders have to say, but I cannot see what have they done to improve academic achievement. (See their current UIPs.[xv]) “High levels of success”? I do not see it. 








School Performance Framework

2014

2016

2017

2018

2019

Collegiate Prep Academy (opened 2011)

PRI IMP

PER

IMP

TRNRD

PRI IMP

DCIS at Montbello (opened 2011)

IMP

IMP

TRNRD

PRI IMP

PRI IMP

PER – Performance     IMP – Improvement       PRI IMP - Priority Improvement     TRNRD – Turnaround

DO: Tough to assess, with COVID and all.  And before you bring it up, I’ve seen their 2021 PSAT/SAT scores.[xvi] Yes, troubling. Still, it’s not fair to judge their schools’ academic progress on those dubious measures.

AV: I agree.[xvii] But we can’t ignore them either. The district is closing these schools. I doubt that would have happened if the results had been better this past decade. But who created these two schools eleven years ago? The district. How does it make any sense that we turn to - who? - the district, once again, to get it right?

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT (9TH/10TH GRADES)

Subject

Student Group

Collegiate Prep Academy

DCIS at Montbello

 

 

2018

2019

2018

2019

CO PSAT – Reading/Writing

All students

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

English Learners

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

Minority Students

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

Students with Disabilities

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

CO PSAT – Math

All students

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

English Learners

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

Minority Students

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

Students with Disabilities

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

       POSTSECONDARY AND WORKFORCE READINESS (11th GRADE)

Subject

Student Group

Rating

 

 

CO SAT – Reading/Writing

All students

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

English Learners

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

Minority Students

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

Students with Disabilities**

-

-

-

-

CO SAT – Math

All students

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Approaching

Does Not Meet

 

English Learners

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

 

Free/Reduced Lunch Eligible

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Approaching

Does Not Meet

 

Minority Students

Does Not Meet

Does Not Meet

Approaching

Does Not Meet

 

Students with Disabilities**

-

-

-

-

*From the School Performance Framework Reports for 2018 and 2019 for Collegiate Prep Academy and DCIS at Montbello. https://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/performancethe. **(Where there are no ratings, the number of students <16.).

NOTE: Noel Community Arts School will also be “reunited” in the new MHS. NCAS high school academic results 2018 & 2019—all DNM.


DO: OK, OK, we’ve made mistakes. But we have learned a lot since 2011. This time, I bet we will succeed.

AV: But this time, it’s a $130 million bet. That figure alone should cause you to pause. Which is why I wish you could acknowledge that the district has not shown the capacity to design a good high school in a setting such as Montbello in decades. And why I’d still place my bet on some other entity leading this work.

Is it too late to ask?

** 



Endnotes



[i] Notice anything distinct about these 14 charter schools? In design, not one made the essential error that seems to have gone unchallenged in all the talk about the “need” for a “comprehensive high school.” Not one started their school design efforts with SIZE as the one given, and worked backwards from there. For them (all under 600 students) a smaller size has proved critical to their success. I believe that demanding that the “recreated,” “resurrected,” or “reimagined” school be – ONCE AGAIN! –"a comprehensive high school” will prove the most fundamental error in the new school’s design. I guess it is too late to challenge that. Many of us are still waiting for the district to make a sound case that bigger is better. 

#

From top 50 schools on Denver’s School Performance Framework, 2019

 

14 charter middle and charter high schools

# of students enrolled 2018-19

update

enrolled 2020-21

1

DSST: at Noel Campus (6-8)

155 (grade 6)

469 (6-8)

9

DSST: Byers Middle (6-8)

497

486

12

DSST: Conservatory Green High

305 (grades 9-10)

574 (9-12)

19

DSST: Byers High

399 (grades 9-11)

569 (9-12)

24

DSST: Green Valley Ranch Middle (6-8)

482

485

27

DSST: Montview High

582

578

31

DSST: Montview Middle (6-8)

477

471

37

DSST: Green Valley Ranch High

550

580

41

DSST: Conservatory Green Middle (6-8)

470

470

44

DSST: College View High

513

558

49

DSST: College View Middle (6-8)

446

475

 

 

 

 

16

KIPP Sunshine Peak Academy (6-8)

422

425

26

KIPP Northeast Denver Leadership Academy (9-12)

458

574

 

 

 

 

33

STRIVE Prep - Federal (6-8)

325

358

 

 

 

 

 

Average size of these 8 middle schools in 2020-21

 

455 students

 

Average size of these 6 high schools in 2020-21

 

572 students

[ii] http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/rvprioryearpmdata 

[iii] I do not believe that demographics are destiny. But surely there is a warning in seeing that Denver might create a second high school as chronically low-performing as Abraham Lincoln has been. No one wants that, true?

Pupil Membership – 2020-21

 

# on Free and Reduced Lunch

Total Student Body

Percent FRL

Abraham Lincoln

841

964

87%

 

 

 

 

Collegiate Preparatory Academy

272

340

80%

DCIS at Montbello

870

935

93%

Noel Community Arts School

333

396

84%

TOTAL for the three schools

1,474

1,671

88%

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/pupilcurrent 

[iv] Abraham Lincoln High School- Final 2019 School Performance Framework– Year 5 of Priority Improvement or Turnaround Comprehensive Support and Improvement - Lowest 5 Percent. https://cedar2.cde.state.co.us/documents/SPF2019/0880-0010-1-Year-Official.pdf

[v] Pupil Membership – 2020-21

 

English Learners

Total Student Body

Percent EL

Abraham Lincoln

546

964

56.6%

 

 

 

 

Collegiate Preparatory Academy

152

340

44.7%

DCIS at Montbello

633

935

67.7%

Noel Community Arts School

152

396

38.4%

TOTAL for the three schools

937

1671

56%

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/pupilcurrent

[x] In AV #228 – Learning together – low-performing high schools in the metro area, I also mentioned Sheridan High’s work with AVID (Advancement via Individual Determination) and Westminster High’s external partners, Advanced Ed and Marzano Academies. Not as a recommendation for any of these partnerships, but to point out the variety of sources one could look to—and might want to bring to the table to find the best options.

[xiii] College Readiness – % of Graduates Requiring Development Education* - Most recent data on high school graduates going on to attend a Colorado college or university.

 

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Collegiate Preparatory

60%

45.8%

53.8%

64.1%

60%

DCIS at Montbello

68.6%

72.7%

84.2%

58.3%

55.2%

STATE

35.0%

35.9%

34.8%

25.9%

26.7%

*https://highered.colorado.gov/pathways-to-prosperity-postsecondary-access-and-success-for-colorados-high-school-graduates 

[xiv] One sign of progress at Collegiate Prep Academy is in attendance: 2018-19, 85.2%; 2019-20, 88.1%; 2020-21, 90.1%. 

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/truancystatistics

[xv] How the schools describe their own performance:

A.)    excerpts from Collegiate Preparatory Academy Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) 2020-21:

Summary of PSAT/SAT:                                                                                                                         (Emphasis mine)              

“Our 9 grade Math growth was higher than other grades, but overall, our growth was much lower than anticipated in both EBRW and the Math. Even though 9th grade proficiency levels increased to the highest levels CPA has had, the growth decreased dramatically. 10th grade proficiency decreased in both EBRW and Math. In 10th and 11th grade, proficiency decreased slightly… Special education students have lower MGPs… Additionally, our ELL students didn't move on growth, nor on status…”

In explaining its Priority Performance Challenges, CPA’s UIP states on four occasions:

“Root Cause: Data Driven Instruction Given classroom observations and data disaggregation across multiple data points, it is apparent we lack rigorous, aligned instruction for disaggregated groups, especially ELL and Sped, with frequent progress monitoring.

“Root Cause: Equity Systems and Supports - We have not yet mastered consistent and rigorous implementation of differentiated strategies, including WiDA, to best serve all students including ELL students and SpEd students, specifically around sheltered instructional practices for our ELLs.

“Root Cause: Instruction and Teacher Supports - We have yet to provide consistent instructional strategies and PD for teachers around effective strategies. We have also not aligned this to the coaching cycles to promote teacher growth.”

“… School Works did a Quality Review. The SQR identified the following themes:

·        The school does not have adequate staff to meet student academic and socio-emotional needs, with a focus on SPED and ELL Students.

·        While the school has teams in place working on culture, there is not yet a shared school-wide responsibility for changing student behavioral and learning culture.

·        The school does not yet provide consistent, standards-aligned best first instruction.                                            (Emphasis mine)

https://co-uip-cde.secure.force.com/UIPPublicFacingdev_Print?id=a0d2I00000Df28FQAR 

B.)    DCIS UIP 2020-21: https://co-uip-cde.secure.force.com/UIPPublicFacingdev_Print?id=a0d2I00000Df28cQAB 

[xvi] From 2021 PSAT and SAT results at CDE ‘s website - http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/sat-psat-data

PSAT – 9th grade

Literacy - 2021

 

Math - 2021

 

TOTAL

BELOW STATE AVERAGE

STATE Average

462

 

441

 

903

-

District Average-DPS

441

 

428

 

869

-34 pts

Collegiate Prep

375

 

373

 

748

-155 pts

DCIS at Montbello

366

 

368

 

734

-169 pts

*Literacy – Short term for the Evidence-Based Reading & Writing Assessment

NOTE – In 2021, both Collegiate Prep (80.3% participation rate) and DCIS at Montbello (91% participation rate) were able to have the far majority of their juniors take the SAT tests.

SAT – 11th grade

Literacy – 2021

 

Math – 2021

 

TOTAL

BELOW STATE AVERAGE

STATE Average

513

 

498

 

1011

-

District Average-DPS

500

 

481

 

981

-30

Collegiate Prep

431

 

420

 

851

-160 pts

DCIS at Montbello

425

 

419

 

844

-167 pts

[xvii] AV# 222 – “The PSAT and SAT do not work well for perhaps 25% of our high schools” (Jan. 2021).