Monday, June 13, 2022

AV#248 - School accountability is not punishment

 June 2022

“And with each passing year, the district’s 6,600 students — many from lower-income households that struggle as it is for educational opportunities — have paid the price. They have been shortchanged.”

Angelika Schroeder, chair, Colorado State Board of Education, The Denver Post, June 8, 2022

 

The eight-hour meeting of the State Board of Education on April 14 gave us a better understanding of the behind-the-scenes conflicts between Adams 14 and its ex-managing partner, MGT. We learned a great deal from the new superintendent, Dr. Karla Loria, and the chief academic officer, Shelagh Burke.  Dr. Loria stressed that she believes the district has been judged unfairly. To the best of my knowledge, though, neither she, nor Burke, nor the director of communications, Robert Lundin, nor the two Adams 14 school board members who spoke, suggested they believe the district has been or is being “punished” by the state. That was left to Joe Salazar, chief legal counsel.

He hammered home this theme. He even warned the board, should it take any “punitive action.” Whether this argument helped Adams 14, whether this approach helps any district, is an open question.

“I must create a record for potential court review should the state board take punitive action on the district.  As I begin let us not forget what the legislative declaration of the accountability act directs and mandates that the public accountability system move ‘from a punitive accountability system to one that is positive and focused on learning and achieving high levels of academic performance.’[i] As I will argue, the way that the accountability act has been applied to Adams 14 by both the CDE and the state board fails to live up to this legislative declaration.”[ii]

I will skip over some of other Salazar’s claims that can be read as “punishment” (“retaliation, pure and simple”; “The accountability act does give you the authority to retaliate against Adams 14”; “threatened with the loss of accreditation”; “claiming that you can use data from years ago to justify attacking Adams 14 today is dubious,” etc.). I only quote here his words derived from to punish.

·   “In fact the accountability act mandates that you refrain from punitive action… “

·   “We ask that you pull back on any planned punitive action against Adams 14.”

·   “I ask what message you are sending to the children of Adams 14 if you decide to reject the evidence we have submitted … and you render a punitive finding against Adams.”

·   “The video record of state board hearings in this quasi-judicia case shows that Adams 14 has been under the constant threat of punitive action by this state board in violation of the accountability act.”

 

At times Salazar appeared to speak not of the “potential” for any punitive action against Adams 14, but to argue that the state had already done so.

·   “I ask all of you what message it sends to Adams 14’s children when you refuse to follow your own policies and take punitive action against Adams 14’s leadership when we follow your policies?”

·   “Some on this state board believe that punishing Adams 14 in 2022 for the decisions of past Adams 14 boards and past superintendents is warranted.”

 

Who is the victim here?

Former state Representative Judy Solano followed Salazar in much the same vein. “Standardized tests are unfair and discriminatory,” she insisted (as she has for over a decade[iii]). She told the board that districts like Adams 14 with a high percentage of: 1) students on Free and Reduced Lunch, 2) students of color, and 3) students who are English Language Learners, “are victims to an accountability system that is not fair, not balanced, not objective…”  

Now that the p word had been used so freely by legal counsel, Solano employed it too. She concluded, “I ask that you take a different approach, one that’s not punitive, something that’s helpful, and that you honor the leadership, this new wonderful leadership, in Adams 14 School District.”

Later, during discussion between the state board and the representatives for Adams 14, Salazar again suggested the state board had already punished the district. This is his take on the external partnership by MGT. I do not find it easy to follow, but here, I believe, what he said.

“This was a trial run of the full management of an entire school district by the state board…. This was an experiment to see what could work, and I think that just the machinery itself, that there are things legally that did not work. For the state board to tell a local school district: you turn over everything - and then punish if that school district fought back because there are contractual problems….”

 

Responsibility and consequences 

Although Mr. Salazar raised important issues about MGT, he “doth protest too much.” Of course he is hardly alone in this perspective.[iv] But if we put aside issues of MGT and an external manager, and look at Colorado’s accountability act, Salazar’s argument misses a central point. —about students. As I read it, a fundamental principle of the act is that adults must take responsibility for the central job of schooling, to help students learn. Adults—school boards, a superintendent, district personnel, principals, teachers, and staff--are responsible for student achievement. And so it is adults who need to answer for a lack of progress. And it is adults who must face consequences for unsatisfactory results. Do we believe that?

Or do we think consequences equal punishment? Or, far worse, that consequences are “retaliation”? (One recent superintendent, at least, did not. See Tom Boasberg: “Accountability is not about punishment.”[v]) 

Let’s keep our focus on the students

From Dr. Karla Loria to the state board on April 14:

We are in turnaround not because of the students. We are in turnaround because of the adults – and I am not saying the adults in my building, or in the central office - all of us. The system.” 

It would be too harsh to say we have “punished” the students these past 12 years–or more–who we have failed. But students, for a host of reasons, have not been well served, far too often. Can we at least agree, as Dr. Loria suggests, that we have failed them? And as a result, they have suffered. We talk of two years of Covid and learning loss. This pales to the impact on 6,000 students a year, in this one Colorado district, for over a decade. This is tragic. (An overstatement? See Addendum.) If so, wouldn’t we do better to focus on who has been hurt the most all this time–the students of Adams 14–and do better by them from now on?

I do not think we are well served when adults representing Adams 14 point fingers at a process, at the Colorado Department of Education, or at the State Board of Education, and play the victim.

If we have victims, we know who they are.

 


Addendum

Tragic – An overstatement?

What if this were your child, attending these schools from 2009-10 (3rd grade) to graduation (2018-19)

A look at the School Performance Framework over 10 years.

What if your son or daughter were in 3rd grade at Central Elementary in the fall of 2009? And he or she attended Central for three years, in grades 3,4, and 5.

School Performance Framework

Attending

 

Performance Indicator

Rating/Plan

% of Points earned out of points Eligible

Grade 3

2009-2010

Academic Achievement

Does Not Meet

25% (6.3 pts out of 25 pts)

Grade 4

2010-2011

Academic Achievement

Does Not Meet

31.3% (7.8 / 25 pts)

Grade 5

2011-2012

Academic Achievement

Does Not Meet

31.3% (7.8 / 25 pts)

 

What if he or she then attended Adams City Middle School for the next three years, in grade 6,7, and 8.

Attending

 

Performance Indicator

Rating/Plan

% of Points earned out of points Eligible

Grade 6

2012-2013

Academic Achievement

Approaching

43.8% (11.0 pts out of 25 pts)

Grade 7

2013-2014

Academic Achievement

Does Not Meet

33.3% (8.3 / 25 pts)

Grade 8

2014-2015

No SPF – Pause in Accountability during shift to CMAS, etc.

 

What if he or she then went on to the district’s high school, Adams City High School, for grades 9-12?

Attending

 

Performance Indicator

Rating/Plan

% of Points earned out of points Eligible

Grade 9

2015-2016

Academic Achievement

Does Not Meet

32.6% (9.8 pts out of 30 pts)

Grade 10

2016-2017

Academic Achievement

Does Not Meet

31.3% (9.4 / 30 pts)

Grade 11

2017-2018

Academic Achievement

Does Not Meet

25.0% (7.5 / 30 pts)

Grade 12

2018-2019

Academic Achievement

Does Not Meet

25.0% (7.5 / 30 pts)

Over those four high school years, perhaps your son or daughter was among the small number of students able to meet the standards and graduate college and career ready. If so, three cheers! But on the whole, whether we look at CMAS in 2016 and 2017 or PSAT scores in 2018 and 2019, average scores were well below expectations. The chances of graduating college and career ready? Pretty slim.

DNM = Does Not Meet - for each of these academic achievement categories, each year

 

2016 - CMAS

2017- CMAS

2018 - PSAT

2019 - PSAT

 

English

Math

English

Math

English

Math

English

Math

All students –

Percentile Rank

DNM

11

DNM

10

DNM

9

DNM

5

DNM

3

DNM

3

DNM

5

DNM

4

English Learners

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

F/R Lunch Eligible

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

Minority Students

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

Students w/ Disabilities

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM

DNM


Endnotes


[i] “The general assembly hereby finds that an effective system of statewide education accountability is one that: Provides more academic performance information, and fewer labels, to move from a punitive accountability system to one that is positive and focused on learning and achieving high levels of academic performance."

Col. Rev. Stat. -  22-12-102 - https://casetext.com/statute/colorado-revised-statutes/title-22-education/general-and-administrative/article-11-accreditation/part-1-general-provisions/section-22-11-102-legislative-declaration

[ii] I apologize for any errors/misquotes. Transcription is mine, based largely on closed captions at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P6XMacjoaA&ab_channel=ColoradoDepartmentofEducation

[iii] 2011 – “Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton and the legislature’s leading critic of CSAPs, isn’t saying yet if she’ll propose any testing legislation this year, as she has done in several past sessions. But she said she’ll continue to raise questions about high-stakes testing.”

“A Solano-sponsored bill to cut back the CSAPs received bipartisan 47-16 support in the House last year before dying in the Senate in a flurry of parliamentary maneuvering during the 2010 session’s closing hours.

https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/in-colorado-education-advocates-fear-flat-funding-is-best-scenario/2011/01 

[iv] From Advocates for Public Education Policy (Edgewater, CO).

STOP THE INSANITY! 

Support our 2022 resolution on accountability. 

"Insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over and expecting different results." 

Our accountability system, adopted in 2009, has failed. High-stakes testing with punitive sanctions imposed on those schools scoring poorly on the mandated standardized tests has not improved student learning, nor has it closed the achievement gap.  

It’s time to stop the insanity of testing over and over, year after year, and expecting different results. it’s time to adopt a system that uses multiple measures for evaluation and provides needed supports to meet the needs of all children. 

Please click here to read our 2022 resolution to redesign

the Colorado Education Accountability System and click 2022 Resolution Supporter if you agree.

https://www.a4pep.org/home

[v] From The 74, Nov. 13, 2017, by Anne Wicks and William McKenzie: 

“The ‘A’ Word: Tom Boasberg — ‘Accountability Is Not About Punishment’”

 

How do you define accountability?

“Accountability is being clear on your performance goals and standards.”

 

Has that changed or evolved as you’ve had time under your belt as superintendent? 

“I don’t think it has. Fundamentally, accountability is not about punishment. That is very important. Accountability is being clear about what you’re seeking to achieve, being transparent about when and how you are going to achieve those goals, and being willing to make changes to get there when you haven’t reached your goals.

“Accountability is not about punishment. Accountability is about change and improvement to reach goals.”

https://www.the74million.org/article/bush-institute-tom-boasberg/