Time to abandon a school design where we cannot know all our students well

#3 – “Personalization”

Final look at three principles guiding restructuring efforts with the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES).[i] From 1991-95, six Colorado high schools were active in the Coalition’s work, led and supported by the Colorado Department of Education.^{^[ii]}

“Personalization” is the Coalition principle that always spoke to me. Perhaps because I first read about it when teaching high school 40 years ago. (Ted Sizer’s Horace’s Compromise – The Dilemma of the American High School, pub. 1984.) Our school did even better (lucky me) than the recommended “no more than 80 students.” Today many consider this target impossible. Teachers in Aurora and Denver tell me many have over 160 students in their classes.^{^[iii]} Most teachers agree with the goal: yes, let’s personalize. But given their workload, they might add, “I wish.” Current contract negotiations include "reducing class sizes."[iv] Merely tinkering at the edges.

3. Personalization [One of the 10 common principles of CES]
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 ….

This principle gets at the heart of the chronic failure of many comprehensive high schools. AV #287 applied the Coalition principle of “less is more” to the academic program; AV #288 connects “less is more” to the very structure and size of our high schools. Smaller schools and smaller classes make it possible for teachers to know their students well, build strong relationships with them, and help them feel they belong, to know their presence matters. Critical for all schools, of course, but especially where we are serving a majority of low socio-economic students.

Again I demonstrate the importance of a Coalition principle by looking at three Denver-area high schools: Aurora Central, Adams City, and Abraham Lincoln. At each, over 85% of students were on Free and Reduced Lunch this past year. Exactly where students need to feel known, supported, connected. Exactly what is often missing, the evidence suggests, in these schools.

“To be connected to school, you have to believe there’s an adult who knows and cares about you as a person, not just like, it’s my job to teach you English and give you a grade. I have an actual relationship with you.” Bob Balfanz, The Colorado Sun, 3/14/23[v]

These high schools have been on the state’s Performance Watch for over a decade.[vi] The main cause: poor academic results. But behind the dismal scores there may be a deeper reason. Their failure to convey to students: We have expectations for you. We are here to help you meet those expectations. And to achieve them, we need you to be here. We expect you to show up.

This is where poor attendance and high chronic absenteeism at these (and at least 10 other[vii]) comprehensive high schools exposes the problem. The sad fact is that a large number of students come to believe it does not matter if they show up at all.

Chronic absenteeism at these three schools averaged close to 64%.

In Colorado, the statewide average was 27% (2023-24)

Schools & 2023-24 enrollment*	Attendance**	Truancy**	Chronically Absent*	2022-23 to 23-24

Aurora Central High (2,044)
2023-24	73.2	22.8	72.7%	Attendance down, truancy up
2022-23	76.5	18.3		Attendance down, truancy up
Adams City High (1,743)
2023-24	79	17.2	65.9%	Attendance down, truancy up
2022-23	83.3	13.2		Attendance down, truancy up
Abraham Lincoln High (1,147)
2023-24	85.1	10.5	53.1%	Slightly better on both issues.
2022-23	84.7	11.5		Slightly better on both issues.
STATE OF COLORADO
2023-24	91.5	3.4	27%	Slightly better on both issues.
2022-23	90.8	3.5		Slightly better on both issues.

*enrollment, chronically absent: 2023-24 figures – CDE – 2023-2024 Chronic Absenteeism by School (XLSX)

**attendance, truancy: 2023-24 - 2023-2024 Attendance and Truancy Rates by School (XLSX)

2022-23 - 2022-2023 Attendance and Truancy Rates by School (XLSX)

NOTE the enrollment at these schools. One plausible conclusion: the bigger the school, the bigger the problem with attendance.

To be specific:

· the harder to be sure all students are known well by the teachers and staff;

· the harder it is to help students feel they belong;

· the harder to keep many students from feeling lost.

And the easier for students to ask:

Who will know, and does anyone care, if I am not in class today?

The comprehensive high school model fails to control for size. Example: take a school that has been struggling to get off the accountability clock for over a decade. It was already far too big. But in just the past two years Aurora Central High enrolled an ADDITIONAL 170 students. How does this make sense?

It only “makes sense” when we think school size does not matter. Our goal: to fill those seats.
Enrolled at Aurora Central High: 2021-22 – 1,830 (529 students in 12^th grade alone)

2022-23 – 1,788 (525 in 12^th grade)

2023-24 – 1,858 (536 in 12^thgrade)

2024-25 – 1,956 (596 in 12^th grade)

The state recognizes the problem. At the March 12 State Board of Education meeting, CDE staff provided an update on schools (including our three high schools) on Performance Watch. Overall, little good news.[viii] Dr. Andy Swanson, CDE’s Director of Turnaround Strategies, admitted:

“I think what we’re noticing, and I think you can probably see, that at our high schools on state board-directed action, we are struggling to gain traction.”

He offered a couple of reasons.

“Turnaround of high school has always been, I think, the most difficult aspect of school turnaround work, when it comes to the work we’re trying to accomplish, especially at large comprehensive high schools that serve predominantly low socio-economic student bodies – [has] always been our most difficult challenge.”

And then he pointed directly to attendance.

“When you look at our sites, the attendance dips that … we’ve seen over the last 4-5 years have been exacerbated at the high school level, and that lack of student engagement and attendance has been a struggle.” (Bold mine)

Our three high schools also recognize the problem. Their most recent Unified Improvement Plans (UIP) spoke of students who “feel lost” and who need more “personalized support.”

“Adams 14 has a goal to increase the relevance, engagement, interconnectedness and sense of belonging in high school by integrating academic core courses, career, technical course, work-based learning and personalized student support. To this end, Adams City High School has begun implementing a new academy model… the school launched [this] in 9^th grade with four academies….” (UIP, p.9)

Aurora Central High – “From 2019-2023, overall average daily attendance has declined and the school has seen chronic absenteeism increase. School leadership has identified this as a priority challenge aligned through a focus on overall engagement… with the Community School model, an increased amount of resources have been added in order to meet the emotional, social and academic needs of students … For too many students, large comprehensive high schools are a place to feel lost and more support is necessary in order to establish student/staff relationships.” (UIP, p.8)

Abraham Lincoln High – “Our intervention tracker shows that the needs of our chronically absent students were not addressed using our current system... Teachers did not regularly participate in attendance team meetings. Team reflections indicate a missed opportunity to discuss student engagement data comprehensively, ie, academic, attendance, BESS, and behavior data. Our attendance tracker points to inconsistent implementation of interventions.” (UIP, p.6)

Ted Sizer – Connecting the teacher workload to attendance

Q: What characterizes the most successful Coalition schools?

Sizer: One of the things that has emerged as most critical—and also the most difficult to accomplish—is reducing the load of students assigned to each teacher. When you get that number down, even if nothing else changes, you can see an effect on the kids. The kids show up. They complain because they cannot get away with anonymity any more, but they show up.[ix]

But note what the schools purport to do. How do academies for freshmen (Adams City), the community school model (Aurora Central), or an attendance tracker (Abraham Lincoln) address what is needed to help students feel they belong? See the schools’ complete UIPs.[x] Do you see any serious effort to rethink their structures in order to create greater personalization? Never once addressing such a basic issue as the teacher workload. Again, can we really know 160 students well?

These proposals miss the larger point. In these communities[xi], the comprehensive high school itself is the problem. In order to connect with our students—to know them well and to support them as individuals—the current structure does not work.

What’s the cause? – The answer is in the question

At that March 12 meeting, Board member Lisa Escarcega was willing to ask CDE: “what is it that causes” us to see chronically low-performing high schools in a such a range of districts? With these differences, she noted, it must be something other than leadership, curriculum, etc.

“What is it that we can do that is going to help?” she wanted to know.

But her own words betray the problem. She asked: “I’m just wondering at a national level, is there anything you are seeing, any trends of work with comprehensive high schools with student populations like this,” that Colorado might learn from. (Emphasis mine). Escarcega added: “I’m not seeing anyone knocking it out of the park, at least not in Colorado.”

And yet the comprehensive high school model is deeply flawed. WE CANNOT GET THERE FROM HERE.

I have suspected this over the past 15 years tracking results at high schools, like our three here.[xii] (Others have been making this point for years.[xiii]) Now I am certain: in these settings, this model does not produce strong academic results or a strong school culture. And too many students are lost.

Going forward, let’s face the fact: We must start with an entirely different design.

Where to look for a better design? Four charter networks might be a place to start.

While I doubt anyone is “knocking it out of the park” in serving our most vulnerable high school students, the State Board and CDE might study America’s Innovative High Schools.[xiv] Among them is the charter school Ted and Nancy Sizer helped found over 30 years ago.[xv] Or—assuming CDE is not averse to learning* from charter school models—it might explore four charter high school networks. (See a recent study in the Addendum. One of the four networks is local, DSST, with seven high schools.) These charters showed no desire to replicate the comprehensive high school model. Perhaps one reason for their success.

AV #289 will list more efforts to redesign our high schools. There is a yearning for something new.

(*AV #286 quoted Sizer on the misguided attempt to find a model “to implement.” We are looking, instead, for good ideas. For what works. Wherever we may find it. Let’s be open.)

In designing a new high school model in Denver, the creators of the Denver School of Science and Technology had a clear vision of what would be the optimal size. Note the average size at their six largest high schools this past year.

In contrast, at Aurora Central High, see (above) the size of just this year’s senior class:

596 students.

Enrollment numbers at six DSST high schools, and % of students on FRL - 2024-25

DSST Cedar High - 546 %FRL - 57

DSST College View – 533 %FRL - 86

DSST Conservatory Green - 556 %FRL - 70

DSST Elevate Northeast – 545 %FRL - 77

DSST Green Valley Ranch - 562 %FRL - 74

DSST Montview High - 562 %FRL - 70

Average size: 548 students

The Addendum also addresses Escarcega’s qualifier: can we find schools that serve student populations similar to what we see at Adams City, Aurora Central, and Abraham Lincoln? See the data on the demographics for these four high school networks.

We can choose. We are not bound by the structures (and large buildings) we have created.

If we believe that it is essential for high schools to personalize, to know students well, and to do all we can to make sure students feel they belong, we must abandon the comprehensive school model. It is a failure of imagination and will to say that, just because that high school building was designed decades ago for 1,500 to 2,000 students, we cannot think anew. The evidence says we must.

When a 15- or 16-year walks into that crowded lobby at 8:15 and feels unseen, when he feels no connection to one adult in the building, we can understand why he might turn around. Becoming another statistic, another chronic absentee.

We want our teenagers to show up, to stay, to learn, to grow.

Let us redesign our schools in ways to make that possible.

Addendum

Case studies of four charter networks

“This year, we also studied four networks: Da Vinci Schools, DSST Public Schools, Noble Schools, and Uplift Education — that stood out for their results in last year’s study.… each did so in their unique way — from offering career majors for all students, to pairing IB education with broad career exposure, to deep STEM exploration and strong college guidance with rich summer experiences. We encourage you to learn more about each of their approaches….”

“What Drives Alumni Success: Insights from the 2024 Early Career Outcomes Survey,” By Eric Chan (Charter School Growth Fund), Aubrey Diaz Nelson (Charter School Growth Fund), & Abigail Smith (Bain & Co.), Jan. 15, 2025, Charter School Growth Fund. https://stories.chartergrowthfund.org/what-drives-alumni-success-insights-from-the-2024-early-career-outcomes-survey-ee1eda24aafc

“Opportunity Charter High Schools and Early Career Outcomes,”

by Bruno V. Manno, Forbes Magazine, May 6, 2025.

“The report has case studies of four charter high school networks—Da Vinci Schools, Uplift Education, Denver School of Science and Technology (DSST), and Noble Schools—with insights into the effectiveness of their educational approaches. I call these schools opportunity charter high schools because of the positive academic and early career outcomes they produce for graduates.

“Da Vinci Schools in Los Angeles County emphasize project-based learning and career experiences. Their model integrates academic rigor with career readiness through career exposure. It includes partnerships with local businesses and other organizations that provide students with internships and mentorship opportunities, including pathways that lead to associate and bachelor’s degrees. This approach equips students with the academic knowledge and practical skills necessary for success in the workforce.

“Uplift Education, based in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, operates a network that prepares students for college and career success. Their model is based on the International Baccalaureate (IB) program, college counseling, and career exploration activities. Students earning an IB diploma receive 24 hours of college credit at a Texas public university. Uplift's comprehensive support system is designed to guide students through high school and into postsecondary pathways that align with their goals.

“DSST Public Schools in Denver combines character development and career pathways in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Their middle and high school model combines rigorous academic instruction with a focus on values like respect, responsibility, and integrity. DSST allows students to engage in hands-on projects and research, fostering critical thinking and problem-solving skills essential in today's job market.

“Noble Schools, operating in Chicago, aim to close the achievement gap for low-income students through high expectations and structured support. Their model includes a college-preparatory curriculum, extensive college counseling, and a focus on discipline and accountability. It provides summer programming for career exposure and a summer internship. Noble Schools strive to ensure that students not only gain college admission but also persist and succeed in their postsecondary endeavors through continuing student support while in college.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/brunomanno/2025/05/06/opportunity-charter-high-schools-and-early-career-outcomes/

Average size of the high school program in these four charter networks

California – 456

Colorado - 491

Illinois - 697

Texas - 520

DATA on enrollment and demographics in these four charter networks provided by Momentum Strategy & Research, https://momentum-sr.org/.

Demographics at these four charter networks

California – DaVinci Schools (6 schools)	2020	2022	2024
White	24%	20%	19%
Non-White	76%	80%	81%
Economically Disadvantaged	41%	42%	47%
English Learners	6%	5%	5%
Students with Disabilities			16%
Homeless			1%
Colorado – DSST Public Schools (Denver School of Science & Technology) (14 schools)
White	14%	11%	11%
Non-White	86%	89%	89%
Economically Disadvantaged	73%	71%	77%
English Learners	34%	32%	36%
Students with Disabilities	11%	11%	13%
Homeless	1%	1%	2%
Illinois – Noble Schools (17 schools)
White	1%	1%	N.A.
Non-White	99%	99%	N.A.
Economically Disadvantaged	89%	80%	N.A.
English Learners	10%	13%	N.A.
Students with Disabilities
Homeless	7%	6%	N.A.
Texas – Uplift Education (6 schools)
White	8%	6%	5%
Non-White	92%	94%	95%
Economically Disadvantaged	48%	40%	52%
English Learners	26%	28%	35%
Students with Disabilities	5%	6%	7%
Homeless	0%	1%	0%

Endnotes

[i] The three principles (among the ten) to be examined in Another View:

1. Learning to use one’s mind well
The school should focus on helping young people learn to use their minds well. Schools should not be “comprehensive” if such a claim is made at the expense of the school’s central intellectual purpose.

2. Less is more: depth over coverage
The school’s goals should be simple: that each student master a limited number of essential skills and areas of knowledge…. The aphorism “less is more” should dominate: curricular decisions should be guided by the aim of thorough student mastery and achievement rather than by an effort to merely cover content.

3. 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.…

The 10 Common Principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools can be found at: https://web.archive.org/web/20230326054404/http://essentialschools.org/home/

[ii] Colorado Coalition of Essential Schools – Colorado Department of Education.

State Department Commitment: Dr. Brian McNulty, Executive Director of Special Services, is the state contact; Mary Apodaca is the full-time coordinator. (Nov. 1994)

[iii] Another View #241 – “Listening to teachers on class size, teacher workload (1998-2021),” Jan. 2022. http://anotherviewphj.blogspot.com/

[iv] “Union that represents Denver teachers pushing for higher pay, smaller class sizes,” by Nicole Brady, Denver 7, June 17, 2025. (Bold mine)

“Robert Gould, president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA), remains cautiously optimistic. He emphasized that negotiations are not limited to salaries but also reducing class sizes from the current cap of 35 students and reducing caseloads for specialty teachers.

“‘It's difficult for that teacher because they have to try to provide that same kind of support and care to every single one of their kids, and they do that, but it makes it hard for them, and we see a lot of teacher burnout because of that,’ Gould said.”

?mc_cid=6fde119645&mc_eid=d624f52310

[vi] Accountability Clock – first year on the clock:

Adams City High – 2010 - Priority Improvement (on Performance Watch ever since)

Aurora Central High – 2010 - Priority Improvement (on Performance Watch ever since)

Abraham Lincoln High – 2011 (Priority Improvement) for one year; 2014 (Priority Improvement); (on Performance Watch ever since)

[vii] Chronic absenteeism [OVER 50%] 2023-24 – in high school with enrollment [OVER 1,000] *

AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS –

Gateway - 62% (1,814)

Hinkley – 56.6% (1,725)

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – 52.8% (1,027)

DISTRICT 49 – Sand Creek H.S - 54.8% (1,439)

HARRISON 2 - Harrison High - 52.0% (1,236)

POUDRE –

Poudre High - - 67.4% (1,626)

Ft. Collins H.S. – 53.8 (1,984)

Fossil Ridge H.S. -51.2% (2,008)

PUEBLO 60 – East High – 51.3% (1,409)

SUMMIT RE-1 – Summit H.S. - 61.4% (1,156)

* CDE – 2023-2024 Chronic Absenteeism by School (XLSX)

[viii] AV#287 – “Applying a second CES principle: less is more. (Part 1) Perhaps just what might help three struggling high schools. (Part 2).” (May 2025)

[ix] “On Lasting School Reform: A Conversation with Ted Sizer,” by John O’Neil, Educational Leadership, Feb. 1995.pages 4-9.

[x] UIPs for 2024-25 – Adams City High - https://co-uip.my.site.com/uipv2/apex/uipV2PrintPublic?dcode=0030&scode=0024

Aurora Central High - https://co-uip.my.site.com/uipv2/apex/uipV2PrintPublic?dcode=0180&scode=1458

Abraham Lincoln High - https://co-uip.my.site.com/uipv2/apex/uipV2PrintPublic?dcode=0880&scode=0010

[xi] As I have written before, of course there are large comprehensive high schools across Colorado and the country that perform well. But a school’s design should meet the needs of its particular setting. The setting and the students’ needs demand a different response.

[xii] AV#59 – “Could high schools be part of the high school dropout problem?” (Aug. 2009).

AV#88 – “Aurora Central High – The Case for State Intervention,” (Sept 2012).

AV#92 – “Regional economic development works. Why not a regional recovery school district?” “How’s this for a New Year’s Resolution? In 2013 Coloradans will make a determined effort to begin to turn around our lowest-performing high schools,” (Jan. 2013).

AV#109 – “Why turnaround schools do not turn around (Aurora Central High), (Feb. 12, 2014).

[xiii] “Is the Comprehensive High School Doomed?” by W. Norton Grubb & Marvin Lazerson, Education Week, Sept. 21, 2004

“The rise and fall of the public comprehensive high school is one of the great tragedies of American education…”

“What can we do?”

“The future need not be all doom and gloom. There are innovations developing that could help. Efforts to reconstitute high schools as small communities with a clear sense of purpose and with something serious to accomplish in their own right can be encouraged. Large comprehensive high schools are a disaster—chaotic, fragmented, purposeless factories. In contrast, schools-within-schools, theme-based schools, charter schools, magnet schools, and schools where teachers stay with their students as they progress hold out some hope that common purposes, built on a community of learners, can restore coherence, engagement, and motivation.” https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-is-the-comprehensive-high-school-doomed/2004/09

[xiv] “America’s Innovative High Schools,” The 74, https://www.the74million.org/americas-innovative-high-schools/

[xv] “Competency-Based Parker Essential School Succeeds by Doing More With Less - The ground-breaking charter school is known for small classes, no grades and huge focus on personalization.” The 74, Oct. 2, 2024.

https://www.the74million.org/article/competency-based-parker-essential-school-succeeds-by-doing-more-with-less/

Another View

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

AV #288 - When the comprehensive high school model does not work - three cases

[xv] “Competency-Based Parker Essential School Succeeds by Doing More With Less - The ground-breaking charter school is known for small classes, no grades and huge focus on personalization.” The 74, Oct. 2, 2024.