Three low-performing high schools, with rarely seen
numbers/graphs
A
learning gap? More like a learning chasm
Introduction
|
“… we know there is work ahead to ensure more students are meeting
Colorado’s academic expectations across every grade and subject. Persistent
achievement gaps highlight the importance of continuing our efforts to
support every learner.” Commissioner of Education Susana Córdova. 8/21/25, upon release of 2025 test scores. |
How do we think about our high school? Do we feel we received a good
education? Do we think the adults in the building knew us, cared about us, and
did a good job of helping us learn valuable skills and knowledge? Are we
grateful for the education we received?
Imagine how the 4,500 students in three of our chronically low-performing
high schools might look back, years hence, on their school. Will they think the
adults did all they could to provide a good education? Will they be grateful?
Every year state leaders speak with grave concern about the learning
gaps in our state. Every year we see most schools on the “accountability clock”
enroll a student population that is 85% or more minority and on Free and
Reduced Lunch.
|
On Performance Watch |
minority |
Free-reduced lunch[i] |
|
Aurora Central H.S. |
94.7% |
91.3% |
|
Adams City H.S. |
94.4% |
85.1% |
|
Abraham Lincoln H.S. |
97.2% |
85.9% |
I ask you to
look at three such high schools with me. I believe schools struggling to support
such a vulnerable population deserve extra attention. The data from each
school will be, at a minimum, disturbing, perhaps shocking. For these
schools, “learning gaps” is an understatement.
I expect some will look at these figures and say: You are out to embarrass
these students. You are criticizing our students who face the toughest odds. You
seem eager to cause pain.
AV
#296 DOES NOT BLAME students for poor scores on state assessments or for such
high rates of chronic absences. I highlight these numbers in the hope that we, as
adults, will look in the mirror and ask: What are we doing, and
not doing, that accounts for such gaps, that brings such disheartening
results for the nearly 4,500 students in these schools?
The refrain from the adult perspective - from the state, districts, school
administrators, and teachers - is this: Our options are limited; we’re
trying our best; based on normal measures of success, the challenges for
students in this population may be too great for us to “succeed.”
But those 4,500 students, years from now, might well look back in anger
– and ask: Didn’t we have a right to a good education? Something closer to
what most teenagers in Colorado experienced? Was that really the best
you could give us? Throughout high school we heard chatter of countless “improvement”
efforts, but nothing significant changed. Are we grateful? No. Except
for the handful of teachers who went out of their way for us, no, we are not
grateful.
Two quotes
“The measure of a public education system is not whether it works for some, but whether it works by design for all." (Bold mine)
State Sen. James Coleman, President
of the Colorado Senate
Clarence Burton, Jr., CEO of Denver
Families for Public Schools
(The Colorado Sun, Jan. 17, 2026)
At the State Board of Education meeting on Sept. 10, 2025, Colorado Department
of Education staff gave an update on a dozen “Schools & Districts with
Directed Action,” as part of the "Accountability Clock Process.” Slide 8
showed several schools that have been “on the clock” for 10, 11, even 12 years.
When we become inured to data that arrives on an annual basis, we
benefit when fresh eyes look and respond with honesty and compassion.
In September Board member Sherri Wright (Congressional District 3) had not yet
completed her first year. This was part of her response.
“I have some grave concerns.”
She spoke of schools that
have been on the accountability clock for 12 years. She imagined what it would
mean for a student to experience many years of what she termed “not a
good education.”
She commented on CDE’s
update. She acknowledged the hard work at these schools.
“They’re doing partnerships and everything.
They’re trying. It’s a grave concern on accountability and it kind of scares
me, as a lay person, that we’re depending on these kids to come out and
be a good strong workforce and they’re lacking in their education.
“Is it our fault? Is it
the schools’ fault. Is it the parents’ fault. I think it’s everybody’s
fault.”
AV #296 is written in that same spirit. We—the adults—are responsible. It
is on us to offer the education our students deserve. There is no blaming of
students here.
I ask you to think of the 4,500 Colorado teenagers
enrolled in three high schools in 2024-25.
I ask
you to look at these student outcomes. Who can say the system is working “for
all” – specifically, for these 4,500 students?
It is time for a change.
Three
high schools on Performance Watch - latest data
I.
PSAT & SAT – Reading/Writing and Math
– 2024-2025 school year – (pages 9-17)
A.
Reading/Writing – gaps – each school scores
below Approaches Expectations
B.
Math – gaps - each school scores below Approaches
Expectations
C.
Most juniors do not meet Colorado Graduation
Guidelines on the SAT
D.
A majority of students score at the lowest
performance level, far below grade level
II.
Growth - percentage and rating. In
virtually all categories, below 45%. (pages 18-20)
III. Attendance, truancy, and chronic absences – (pages 21-22)
Aurora Central High - 69.4%; Abraham Lincoln - 61.4%; Adams City - 54.6% chronically absent.
A question of accountability
CDE’s
presentation to the State Board on these three schools, Dec. 10, 2025
I present 2024-25 results on the three “A” high schools: Aurora Central High
(the 9-12 program at the Aurora Central Campus); Adams City High, the main high
school in Adams 14; and Abraham Lincoln High in Denver. I have written about
them many times over the past 15 years.
|
FROM
AV #289 “‘State
Board members suggest they, too, realize the Education Accountability Act of
2009 has not succeeded in ‘turning around’ our lowest-performing
comprehensive high schools.” ** For over 15 years we have been sending thousands of our most vulnerable students into school buildings that are not providing a high-quality education. For over 15 years. The Education Accountability Act has brought benefits. But not for these high schools and not for this student population. Years ago we spoke with confidence of “school turnaround” work; we envisioned dramatic improvement. It has not happened. |
Last March the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) staff presented to the State Board current data on these schools (March 2025). It led me to write AV #289: “High schools where our Education Accountability Act does not work. Time for a change.” (See box.) I featured Aurora Central High and Adams City High in that piece.
Now with 2024-25 data in front of us, my argument should carry more weight. Lots of evidence here. What we are doing is simply not working.
AV #296 provides evidence most State Board members have never seen. In that biannual “progress monitoring update” to the Board last March, Dr. Andy Swanson, Director of Transformation Strategy at CDE, confessed: “I think you can see that at our high schools overall with state board-directed action, we are struggling to gain traction at some of the
|
CDE’s Data Update on Aurora
Central High, 3/12/25 - Student attendance and local assessment participation are not on track to meet end of year targets. - Participation rates were not sufficient to be able to share local assessment data |
Deeply troubling, as it turns out.
Unfortunately, CDE’s follow-up presentation to the State Board in September
provided few details for 2024-25 results. (See boxes on Aurora Central.)
|
CDE’s Data Update on Aurora Central High,
9/10/2025 - Despite progress in improving their attendance from previous years (7 out of 9 months demonstrated improved attendance), attendance continues to be low at Aurora Central Campus (high 70s, low 80s for most months). - Aurora Central Campus earned points for an Improvement plan but were decreased due to participation for the second consecutive year. Full Slide from that presentation.[ii] |
These results reveal the glaring gaps between what we as a state set as our academic expectations and how students in these schools perform. I have studied 2024 and 2025 assessment results and see occasional improvements:
· Aurora Central High - SAT reading/writing score—up from 14.7% to 22.4% Meeting Expectations;
·
Adams City High - SAT mean scale score on
Reading/Writing – up from 408 to 420;
·
Abraham Lincoln – SAT mean scale score on Math – up from
378 to 401.
(NOTE: Progress, but that only meant an increase from 5.1%
to 7.3% Meeting Expectations in Math.)
Overall, however, as the growth data will show, these schools again failed to make significant progress. None reached the growth target of 50% or above. See Part II, Growth.
I report on these high schools for two reasons. First, we must see that the accountability system is not fulfilling its goal. We set out to bring significant improvement to these schools. After looking at the evidence here, who can believe we have accomplished that goal?
Second, I question what CDE staff presented to the State Board at its meeting on Dec. 10, 2025. We learned of the five high
Colorado has four school ratings for
accountability: Performance, Improvement, Priority Improvement, and
Turnaround. (See CDE’s
explanations of these categories.[iv]) |
In September CDE announced its preliminary school frameworks.[v]
(I hope you will bear with me. What happened last fall is complicated.) Both
Aurora Central Campus and Abraham Lincoln High were rated on Priority
Improvement. (Aurora Central Campus was actually rated Improvement,
but this was “decreased to Priority Improvement due to Assessment
participation issues.”)
At the December Board meeting, CDE presented revised, and higher,
ratings for both Aurora Central and Abraham Lincoln.[vi]
(For CDE’s explanation to me, see Endnote.[vii])
Given the State Board’s interest in these schools, these revised ratings
deserve a closer look.
For these “A” schools, on Dec. 10 CDE staff showed the following updated 2025 SPF ratings to the Board. Here I add their 2024 ratings and the columns with the Percentage Points Earned.
A. *
Is Aurora Central High School rated on Improvement? No.
Aurora Central - The campus is on
Improvement. What about the high school?
|
In his presentation to the State Board last March, Dr. Andy Swanson
explained that Aurora Central had “transitioned to becoming a new K-12 arts
campus. While the school overall is a K-12 campus,” he said, “the academic
concerns both for CDE, the board, and their district focus on their pathway
plan and primarily geared toward the high school level.” |
In failing to say a word about the high school’s performance rating
on Dec. 10, CDE may have enabled leaders at Aurora Central Campus to misunderstand
(or is it to misrepresent?) what is true. Given its oversight role, the State
Board should have no such misunderstanding. This appeared on Aurora Central’s
website last month.
|
Aurora Central Earns Improvement Status Dear Aurora Central High School
Community, (Bold
mine)
I am deeply proud to share some exciting news about our school’s
performance progress.
It is now official that for the first time in more than 15 years,
Aurora Central High School has made enough improvement to earn a state
performance rating of “Improvement” status. In previous years, our school
received ratings of “Priority Improvement” or “Turnaround,” so
this newly earned status represents a truly significant celebration for our
entire school community.
I want to thank and celebrate the hard work, commitment and
perseverance of our students, staff and families.
Thank you for your continued support of Aurora Central High School. I
am incredibly proud of what we have accomplished—and even more excited about
where we are headed. Sincerely, Kurtis Quig, Principal |
A longer version of Quig’s announcement, from Dec. 16, 2025, is at the
high school’s website.[viii]
The principal of the Charles Burrell K-8 school sent out a similar
letter on Dec. 16.[ix]
Sadly, both principals are mistaken.
See CDE’s 2025 Final School Performance
Framework (Official Rating) for Aurora Central Campus.[x]
On the bottom of page one we see three different “Points by Level” and the
distinct rating by each level.
Middle – 70.6% - Performance
High
– 35.9% - Priority Improvement (My addition: a decline from 37.7% in
2024.)
The general guidelines for determining the school plan, as we read on these pages, “are based on the total percentage of points earned.”
Improvement Plan: 42.0% - 52.9%
Priority
Improvement Plan: 34.0% - 41.9%
Turnaround Plan: 0.0% - 33.9%
To be clear: Aurora Central High is rated on Priority
Improvement. With only 35.9% points, it sits at the low end of the Priority
Improvement ratings. (See “C” below.)
What math formula, I wonder, came up with 48.2% points earned for the
campus? In 2024-25 Aurora Central High enrolled over 1,950 students, the Charles
Burrell K-8 school just 500 students. So 80% of the students on the Aurora
Central Campus attended one of the lowest-performing high schools in Colorado, and
yet the Campus received 48.2% points and is rated on an Improvement Plan.
How does that give appropriate weight to the high school’s performance?
It does not – forgive me – add up.
Finally, whatever CDE determines about the “sufficient percentage of students
taking the state assessments,” what about the other 170 days of the school year?
As you will see, Aurora Central High again had dismal results on attendance,
truancy, and chronic absences. (Part III - Attendance.)
**
A brief look back – where have we seen this before?
“Campus” talk confuses the issue – exactly what Aurora Public Schools tried to do
In the spring of 2024, before Aurora Central presented an update on its turnaround work to the State Board, it gave a first cut to the Aurora Public Schools Board of Education. In AV #269 I responded: “Aurora Public Schools muddies the waters before state hearing. Embarrassing presentation to the Aurora School Board reveals confusion, obfuscation” (3/26/24). I noted how much time that presentation spent touting the success of the Charles Burrell K-8 program.
[It] suggested a way to change the subject. Or at least a new
way to confuse the issue—and talk about a “new” K-12 campus ... Does APS hope
this “narrative” about the “new campus” will distract the State Board from its
focus on what has changed (or not) at the high school since 2019? Above
all, what does this “story” have to do with accountability for ACHS?
(More in Endnote.[xi])
**
I am left to wonder why the Colorado Department of Education is not more
forthright in telling the State Board what is taking place at Aurora Central High
School. Is there some attempt to pull a curtain over the high school’s terribly
poor results? AV #296 provides a look behind the curtain.
B. ** Abraham Lincoln High is now also on
Improvement?
If those guidelines
on how schools are rated (see above - Priority Improvement Plan: 34.0% - 41.9%) were
followed to the letter, a school like Abraham Lincoln, with a score of 41.8 %
points earned—would receive a Priority Improvement rating.
That
is where CDE’s Preliminary Rating put Abraham Lincoln in September, with 41.8%
points. But the Final Ratings released in December found the school (still with
a score of 41.8% points) now on an Improvement Plan.
Quite a jump for a school rated on Turnaround the previous year.
The following pages provide plenty of 2024-2025 data on Abraham Lincoln High to raise questions about this higher rating. Four examples.
|
Did
Not Yet Meet Expectations |
||
|
Grade
9 |
Grade
10 |
Grade
11 |
|
67.7% |
63.2% |
72.7% |
- At Abraham Lincoln, 80% (120 out of 150) of the juniors taking the SAT MATH scored in the lowest performance level, Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.
- At Abraham Lincoln, on the PSAT MATH, the percentage of freshmen who Met/Exceeded Expectations dropped from 30.7% in 2024 to 13.4% in 2025.
- 618 of Abraham Lincoln’s 1,006 students were chronically absent, a rate of 61.4%.
Where is the evidence to justify CDE raising
Abraham Lincoln’s rating from Turnaround to Improvement? Chalkbeat
Colorado’s recent story, “Denver’s Lincoln H.S. improves
state rating amid immigration enforcement fears, other challenges,” gave one
explanation.[xii] The
article brought to life those many challenges; it presented a more nuanced
picture of the high school than you will see in AV #296.
Chalkbeat recounted the school scrambling last fall to find another 13 recent graduates who had enrolled in college. It succeeded, and thereby improved its rating. A sad commentary, I thought, on our accountability process.
(Regarding Chalkbeat’s reference to
Lincoln’s higher growth scores in 2025, see Part II - Growth.)
A note to
Denver Public Schools – there is still work to do
Last spring Denver Superintendent Alex Marrero indicated that the
district’s efforts to improve a number of its lowest-performing schools did not
need to include Abraham Lincoln. According to Chalkbeat Colorado:
One school, Abraham Lincoln High, has seven years of low ratings and is already undergoing state intervention. But because it’s in the midst of a state-directed improvement plan, Lincoln High would be exempt from closure under Marrero’s plan, he said.[xiv]
I hope the superintendent
and the Denver School Board will read on to learn more about Abraham Lincoln’s
performance in 2025. Given these results, DPS will need to do more than trust
that the state’s “intervention” has been successful.
C.
Eight low-performing high schools in Colorado
On Dec. 10, 2025, the Colorado Department of
Education presented the District Accreditation Rating Determinations
& School Plan Type to the State Board of Education.[xv]
CDE listed five high schools on State Board
Directed Action* (Slide 43) and three high schools on Performance Watch “with
Possible End-of-Clock Hearings”** (Slide 45).
From
their School Performance Framework pages, I find the following percentage points earned for these
high schools - including for Aurora Central High School on
the Aurora Central Campus.
|
**Hinkley High
School (year 4) |
42.8 |
|
*Abraham Lincoln
High School (year 7) |
41.8 |
|
**Fort Lupton High
School (year 4) |
40.9 |
|
*Adams City High
School (year 12) |
40.0 |
|
**John F Kennedy
High School (year 4) |
40.0 |
|
*Aurora Central
High (year 10) [or is it 11?] |
35.9 |
|
*Mitchell High
School (year 7) |
35.7 |
|
*Gateway High
School (year 8) |
35.5 |
All data and references to Aurora Central here
are about Aurora Central High School, and NOT Aurora Central Campus,
which includes the Charles Burrell K-8 school in a separate building.
A.
PSAT
& SAT – Reading/Writing and Math – 2024-25 school year
From
SchoolView.[xvi] My addition: State average and
Minimum Score in our Graduation Guidelines.
* For the 2024 and 2025 school years the State Board has lowered the required minimum score to meet the Graduation Guidelines - from 500 to 480.
CDE’s SchoolView shows a minimum score for Meets
(466) and for Approaches (423) for Math that applies to most schools.
SchoolView shows slightly different numbers for Meets and Approaches for
Aurora Central.
State average = approximate -
combining average for grade 9 (452) and grade 10 (468) = 460
Maximum score on both Reading/Writing
and on Math: for PSAT 9 = 720 for PSAT 10 = 760
CDE’s
SchoolView shows a minimum score for Meets (459) and for Approaches
(415) for Reading and Writing that applies to most schools. SchoolView shows
slightly different numbers for Meets and Approaches for Aurora
Central.
State average = approximate - combining
average for grade 9 (428) and grade 10 (449) = 439
CDE’s
SchoolView shows a minimum score for Meets (430) and for Approaches
(387) for Math that applies to most schools. SchoolView shows slightly
different numbers for Meets and Approaches for Aurora Central.
B. Colorado Graduation Guidelines – what percentage
can meet the SAT minimum score?
In order to graduate, Colorado students must
meet the expectations set in the Colorado Graduation Guidelines. In light of
the data above, it is no surprise to see the small percentage of last year’s
juniors in these schools who will be able to meet the minimum scores for the
SAT. As seniors now, in order to graduate this spring, most will need to use
one of the other 10 pathways in the state’s Menu of Options to demonstrate
“college and career readiness.” Especially to fulfill the Math requirement, where
so few achieve the minimum score of 480.
GAPS
This page emphasizes the gaps:
1) between the MINIMUM SCORE for seniors to
meet the state’s Graduation Guidelines on the SAT, and how juniors in these
schools scored last year.
2) between the STATE AVERAGE SCORE for 10th
graders on the PSAT, and the scores for 10th graders in these schools.
3) between the STATE-WIDE PERCENTAGE of students who Met or Exceed Expectations on the SAT and the PSAT, and the percentage who Met or Exceed Expectations in these schools.
|
SAT READING & WRITING Graduation Guideline Minimum Score |
470 |
% MET/EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS |
|
State average |
507 |
61.5% |
|
Adams City High School |
420 |
N.A. |
|
87 pts below state average; 50 pts below minimum score |
||
|
Aurora Central High
School |
396 |
22.4% |
|
111 pts below state average; 74 pts below minimum score |
||
|
Abraham Lincoln High
School |
387 |
16.7% |
|
120 pts below state average; 83 pts below minimum score |
||
|
SAT MATH Graduation Guideline
Minimum Score |
480 |
% MET/EXCEEDED
EXPECTATIONS |
|
State average |
479 |
32.5% |
|
Abraham Lincoln High School |
401 |
7.3% |
|
79 pts below minimum
score |
||
|
Adams City High School |
393 |
N.A. |
|
87 pts below minimum
score |
||
|
Aurora Central High School |
380 |
6.1% |
|
100 pts below minimum
score |
||
Mean
Scale Scores and % Met/Exceeded from CDE’s 2025 SAT/PSAT Data and Results[xvii]
COMMENT:
My unscientific search found few comprehensive high schools in Colorado (not
alternative or online) with SAT MATH results for grade 11 as low as at Aurora
Central and Abraham Lincoln, where less than 8% Met/Exceeded Expectations.
Five high schools with equally low scores: Harrison (Harrison 2), Thornton
(Adams 12), Montbello and West (DPS), and Gateway (APS).
|
PSAT READING &
WRITING – Grade 10 |
% MET/EXCEEDED
EXPECTATIONS |
|
|
State average |
468 |
63.5% |
|
Adams City High School |
372 |
N.A. |
|
|
96 pts below state
average |
|
|
Aurora Central High School |
360 |
21% |
|
|
108 pts below state average |
|
|
Abraham Lincoln High School |
352 |
21.7% |
|
|
116 pts below state
average |
|
|
PSAT MATH – Grade 10 |
% MET/EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS |
|
|
State average |
449 |
36.4% |
|
Adams City High School |
353 |
N.A. |
|
|
96 pts below state average |
|
|
Aurora Central High
School |
350* |
9.0%* |
|
|
99 pts below state average |
|
|
Abraham Lincoln High
School |
364* |
6.6%* |
|
|
85 pts below state average |
|
*CDE tried to explain to me how Abraham Lincoln can have a higher mean scale score in Math (364) than Aurora Central High (350), while Aurora Central has a higher percentage who “Met/Exceeded Expectations.” I trust the explanation (though I confess I do not understand it!).
C.
Did Not Yet Meet Expectations
The standard presentation of a school’s performance shows the percentage
of students who meet or exceed expectations. We seldom see how the rest of the
students performed. We almost never learn how many students scored in
the lowest performance level.
But for these three schools, on the PSAT and SAT, the majority of students scored in the lowest performance level, Did Not Yet Meet Expectations. Not a happy fact, but we must recognize it.
For the PSAT/SAT, scores
fall into four performance levels. From top to bottom, they are:
Level 4 - Exceeded Expectations
Level 3 - Met Expectations
Level 2 - Approached Expectations
Level 1 - Did Not Yet Meet Expectations
(Level 1: “Students performing at this level may minimally approach the academic expectations for
the knowledge, skills and practices known to be most relevant for success in
college and careers …” See Addendum A for CDE’s helpful
definitions of Approached and Did Not Yet Meet.)
Only by seeing the percent scoring Did
Not Yet Meet Expectations in these schools do we understand the enormity of
the “learning gap” for their students.
As the data shows, it is not just that most students fall short of Meeting
Expectations.
It is worse than that.
Most students fall short of Approaching Expectations.
The majority of students score in the lowest performance level, Did Not
Yet Meet Expectations.
At the three high schools, on all six assessments, the majority of
students perform Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.
In short, most students perform well below
grade level in both Reading/Writing and Math.
|
The same holds
true for CMAS reporting. We need to see a breakdown of those who do not
Meet/Exceed on CMAS. After all, that is the majority of students in grades
3-8! As there are three categories below Met/Exceed with CMAS, we
need to see the data for each: Approaching, Partially Met, and Did
Not Yet Meet. This is especially important when reporting on our lowest-performing
schools. |
Let’s use the terms we have accepted for the past decade: Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.
READING/WRITING – 2025
- Percentage and THE NUMBER of students scoring
Did Not Yet Meet Expectations
on PSAT/SAT, by grade.
These
charts and data come from CDE’s website, at SchoolView[xviii],
for Aurora Central Campus,
Abraham Lincoln High, and (note, not for the school) for the Adams 14 School
District. Click on Achievement, then Assessment Achievement, then PSAT
& SAT results for 2024-25.
COMMENT:
·
For Reading/Writing, at all three schools, over 55% of 9th grade
students scored Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.
·
More troubling is that the percentage is even higher
by grade 11 in all three schools.
·
At Aurora Central High and Abraham
Lincoln High, over 70% of 11th graders scored Did Not Yet
Meet Expectations.
# Students Did Not Meet:
Gr.
9 - 187/334 (56%) Gr.
10 - 209/333 (62.8%) Gr.
11 – 248/353 (70.3%)
To be clear, 248 students out of a
junior class of 353 scored Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.
# Students Did Not Meet:
Gr. 9 – 149/220 (68%) Gr. 10 – 134/212 (63.2%) Gr. 11 – 109/150 (72.7%)
109 students out of a junior class
of 150 scored Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.
# Students Did Not Meet:
Gr. 9 – 202/363 (56%) Gr. 10 – 211/357 (59.1%) Gr. 11 – 191/322 (59.3%)
191 juniors out of a class of 322
scored Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.
|
Lack of
focus on improving literacy Last spring,
after CDE staff presented mid-year updates on these three high schools, in AV
#287 I noted “that we heard virtually nothing about efforts at these schools
to address the fact that the majority of their students are not demonstrating
reading and writing skills close to grade level.” (More
from #287 in Endnotes.[xix])
|
I asked CDE why much of the PSAT/SAT data for
Adams City High School, given its size, does not appear on SchoolView. An
email from CDE staff explained “why data are sometimes suppressed for some
schools like Adams City High … Publishing results for Adams City would
expose data for students at Lester Arnold [an alternative education campus and the
only other high school in the district] that we are not legally allowed to
report. However, that also means that the data for the district level is
overwhelmingly representative of Adams City High and can be used as a
proxy for their performance.” (Bold mine)
One example supports that assertion: The far majority of the students in
Adams 14 taking the SAT-Reading/Writing test attended Adams City High - 292
out of 322 (91%). Only 30 students from Lester Arnold took the
SAT-Reading/Writing test. Of the 292 Adams City High students, CDE’s
website shows that 57.2% (167 out of 292) scored Did Not Yet Meet
Expectations on this SAT assessment, similar to the district figure of 59.3%
(191/322).[xx]
MATH – 2025 - Percentage
and THE NUMBER of students scoring
Did Not Yet Meet
Expectations on PSAT/SAT, by grade.
In Math, overall,
more than 80% of the students in these schools scored at the lowest
level.
# Students Did Not Meet:
Gr. 9 – 303/365 (83%) Gr. 10 – 293/355 (82.5%) Gr. 11 – 315/380 (82.9%)
315 juniors out of a class of 380 scored Did Not Yet Meet
Expectations.
Gr. 9 – 193/220 (88%) Gr. 10 – 167/211 (79.1%) Gr. 11 – 120/150 (80%)
120 juniors out of a class of 150
scored Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.
*THESE ARE DISTRICT FIGURES. See notes, above, on the Reading/Writing scores in Adams 14.
# Students Did Not Meet:
Gr. 9 – 312/365 (86%) Gr. 10 – 305/358 (85.2%) Gr. 11 – 266/324 (82.1%)
266 out of 324 juniors in Adams 14 who took the test scored
Did Not Yet Meet Expectations.
Two thoughts – perhaps slightly contradictory
|
Further reason for alarm at these results The
PSAT/SAT might be an “easier” test, yet 80% score Did Not Yet Meet
Expectations
Last August, CDE staff explained to the State Board why PSAT/SAT
Reading and Writing scores might look much “better” than those for CMAS.
Unlike what CMAS expects of middle school students, on the PSAT/SAT “there’s no written response at all
and the passages are much shorter – a few sentences, about 2-3 sentences.” (More from CDE’s explanation in Endnotes.[xxi]) |
|
When “80%” do not pass a test - A former teacher
comments So
at these three schools over 80% of the juniors taking the SAT MATH assessment last spring
scored in the lowest performance level, Did Not Yet Meet Expectations. As a
teacher, if half of my class failed a quiz or test I had given, I knew I was
to blame. My students had not been properly prepared. Once when this happened
I threw out those results and re-taught the material. Then I gave my students
a new assessment – where they had a chance to succeed. I have written before why I believe the
PSAT/SAT is the wrong assessment for high schools like the three “A’s.” [xxii]
I do not enjoy highlighting these scores. But
as long as accountability for our high schools depends on them, we must look
at the depressing results and acknowledge the LEARNING CHASM they reveal. |
II.
GROWTH – Percentage
and rating
(Bold Mine)
“Student Growth: Proficiency rates are a critical measure of student performance, but it is also important to look at how much growth schools are helping students make year over year to understand their direct impact on students. In Colorado, Median Growth Percentile (MGP) looks at how much growth individual students are making compared to similar-performing peers. An MGP of 50 indicates that students at a school are keeping pace, while below indicates they are making less growth than their peers.” (“Colorado Charter Schools Report,” Keystone Policy Center, January 2025.[xxiii])
From CDE’s Growth Fact Sheet:
“Typical
growth is between the 36th and 65th percentile. The state median growth percentile is 50 for each grade and subject.”
More in Endnotes.[xxiv]
2025 information from
CDE’s Performance Framework: Academic Growth[xxv]
From CDE’s “Performance
Frameworks - Official Performance Ratings” – 2024 and 2025
|
|
2024 |
2025 |
||
|
|
All students |
All students |
FRL students |
Minority students |
|
Aurora Central High
School |
||||
|
Reading/Writing PSAT |
39 Approaching |
38 Approaching |
38 Approaching |
38 Approaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Math |
36 Approaching |
39 Approaching |
38 Approaching |
39 Approaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
English Language Proficiency
(ELP) |
44 Approaching |
48 Approaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abraham Lincoln
High School |
||||
|
Reading/Writing PSAT |
31 Does Not Meet |
42 Approaching |
41.5 Approaching |
41 Approaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Math PSAT/SAT |
34 Does Not Meet |
44.5 Approaching |
44.5 Approaching |
44 Approaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
English Language Proficiency |
59 Meets |
52 Meets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adams City High
School |
||||
|
Reading/Writing PSAT |
39 Approaching |
43 Approaching |
42 Approaching |
42.5 Approaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Math PSAT/SAT |
33 Does Not Meet |
35 Approaching |
36 Approaching |
35.5 Approaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
English Language Proficiency |
50 Meets |
43 Approaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMENT: Growth scores at Abraham Lincoln. Context matters.
Last month’s Colorado Chalkbeat
article echoed this good news. “Lincoln’s academic growth — a
measure of how much students improved year over year — was the highest it’s
been since before the pandemic.”
All true, but the data above provides
some context. Abraham Lincoln was rated on Turnaround in 2024 largely due
to low growth scores (see 31 and 34 above) and low achievement. So the increase
on Growth - from 31 to 42 on
Reading/Writing, from 34 to 44.5 on
Math - accounts for this “double-digit increase.” Good to see, of course. And
yet a 44.5% still fell short of Meeting Expectations.
As I understand it
(I might well be wrong), for our lowest performing schools, growth rates need to
exceed 60% to bring students’ performance closer to grade level.[xxvi]
More revealing is what this “double-digit
increase” actually meant in terms of achievement, a point made in Part 1.
(Apologies for being redundant.)
To be specific, at Abraham Lincoln, comparing scores in 2024 to 2025:
SAT mean
scale score on English - up from 372 in 2024 to 387 in 2025.
Which equated to an increase from 12.8% to 16.7% Meeting Expectations.
SAT mean
scale score on Math – up from 378 to 401. Which only meant an
increase from 5.1% to 7.3% Meeting Expectations.
And for younger students, PSAT scores for 9th graders declined in both Reading/Writing (353 dropped to 308) and Math (336 to 331).
Context matters when we see “better” growth scores. This is especially true when a school’s scores the previous year - on both achievement and growth - were exceptionally low.
III.
Attendance, truancy,
and chronic absences
Many Colorado comprehensive high schools see alarming rates
of chronic absences. But few this high.
|
Schools
& 2024-25 enrollment[xxvii] |
Attendance |
Truancy |
Chronically
Absent |
COMMENTS |
|
Aurora Central High (1,956) |
|
|
|
|
|
2024-25 |
77.0 |
19.9 |
69.4% |
-Attendance, slight improvement from 2024; about same
as 2023. -Chr. Abs.- slight improvement. However, over 40% pts
above the state average. |
|
73.2 |
22.8 |
72.7% |
||
|
2022-23 |
76.5 |
18.3 |
|
|
|
Abraham Lincoln High (965) |
|
|
|
|
|
2024-25 |
83.8 |
10.7 |
61.4% |
-Attendance, truancy – little change. Higher than might be expected given that … -Chr. Abs. – increased by 8.3%, now 33% pts above the
state average. |
|
2023-24 |
85.1 |
10.5 |
53.1% |
|
|
2022-23 |
84.7 |
11.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adams City High (1,500) |
|
|
|
|
|
2024-25 |
84.4 |
12.7 |
54.6% |
-Attendance,
truancy - better than 2024, similar
to 2023. -Chr.
Abs – improvement, drop of over 10%. |
|
2023-24 |
79 |
17.2 |
65.9% |
|
|
2022-23 |
83.3 |
13.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STATE OF COLORADO |
|
|
|
|
|
2024-25 |
91.4 |
3.6 |
28.4% |
|
|
2023-24 |
91.5 |
3.4 |
27.7% |
|
|
2022-23 |
90.8 |
3.5 |
31.1% |
COMMENT: Attendance and chronic absence rates at
Aurora Central High School
In CDE’s update to the State Board on these
high schools in March 2025, Dr. Andy Swanson pointed out that attendance at Aurora
Central High continued to be a major challenge.
“…
significant concerns regarding student attendance, with monthly attendance
hovering in the upper 70’s despite intervention efforts. These attendance
challenges are directly impacting the school’s ability to demonstrate
consistent academic progress.”
“The school’s Community School model implementation is ongoing, but has not yet shown measurable impact on core attendance and achievement metrics at this point in time.”
“The development of an engagement center for chronically absent students is a step in the right direction, but implementation is still in its early stages.”[xxviii]
Those remarks seem prescient in light of the grim
2024-2025 figures. For the third straight year attendance at Aurora Central
High was no better than 77%. Think about this. A teacher might have 30
students enrolled in his or her class, but on average, only 23 students
show up. That “77%” aligns with the truancy figure of close to 20%
the past two years. (State average: 3.4%.)
Most distressing is to see that for the
second year in a row, chronic absences were close to 70%.
The NUMBER OF STUDENTS tells an even more disturbing
story
(This is for the HIGH SCHOOL, not the CAMPUS.)
Abraham Lincoln High – 61.4% - 618 out of 1,006 students were chronically absent.
Adams
City High – 54.6% -
908 out of 1,664 students were chronically absent.
TOTAL
– In 2024-25 2,861 students were chronically absent in these three
schools.
COMMENT – on high schools where over 60% of students were chronically
absent
NOTE: Unlike
Abraham Lincoln, all three were rated on Priority Improvement in 2025.
Chronic absentee rate
and number of students chronically absent
Mitchell High (Colorado Springs 11)
– 67.9% (564/831 students)
Gateway High (Aurora Public
Schools) - 64.9% (1,197/1,845 students)
John F. Kennedy High (DPS) – 61%
(436/715 students)
Addendum A
“Colorado PSAT and SAT,” from the Colorado Department of Education https://ed.cde.state.co.us/assessment/sat-psat#satperfcutscore
SAT Performance Levels
and Cut Scores
Policy level descriptors are general
statements across grades and content areas indicating the expected level of
achievement or rigor for each level. For PSAT/SAT, Colorado adopted four levels
of achievement named consistently with the Colorado Measures of Academic
Success but with text specific to high school. They address both academic
expectations, as well as provide practical implications for future coursework.
Level 4 - Exceeded Expectations
Level 2 - Approached
Expectations
·
Students performing at this
level approach the academic expectations for the knowledge, skills
and practices known to be most relevant for success in college and careers
contained in the assessed high school Colorado Academic Standards.
·
With continued coursework,
students are likely to engage successfully in entry-level, credit-bearing
courses.
Level 1 - Did Not Yet Meet
Expectations
·
Students performing at this
level may minimally approach the academic expectations for the knowledge,
skills and practices known to be most relevant for success in college and
careers contained in the assessed high school Colorado Academic Standards.
·
With significant additional
coursework, students may engage successfully in entry-level, credit-bearing
courses.
* Indicates
readiness for credit-bearing college entry coursework and career
Clarification on Did Not Yet Meet and Approached Expectations
CDE sent me the
following. It provides more detail on how these categories apply to the
assessment on Reading and Writing. (Bold mine)
Threshold Descriptor 1 (connected to Did Not Yet Meet
Expectations):
Students have not achieved Threshold Descriptor 2 and
demonstrate a basic understanding of and ability to apply the reading,
revising, and editing skills and knowledge needed for college and career
readiness and success. These students may be able to demonstrate some ability
to read and analyze moderately challenging (and simpler) texts and to revise
and edit texts in basic ways and in simple contexts but are not able to
demonstrate achievement sufficient for Threshold Descriptor 2.
Threshold Descriptor 2 (connected to what is needed to reach Level
2, Approached Expectations):
Students at Threshold Descriptor 2 demonstrate a level of reading,
revising, and editing achievement approaching but not meeting the college
and career readiness benchmark. These students may be able to demonstrate
some ability to read and analyze moderately challenging and complex (and
simpler) texts and an ability to revise and edit in straightforward ways and
contexts but not at the level of achievement requisite for college and career
readiness and success.
Endnotes
[i] District Dashboard and School Dashboard, Colorado Department of Education (CDE),
https://ed.cde.state.co.us/accountability/data-tools/district-and-school-dashboard
[ii]
State Board meeting, March 12, 2025, “Progress Monitoring Update” by Nicole
Monet, Executive Director, School & District Transformation, and Dr. Andy
Swanson, Director, Transformation Strategy,
https://go.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/DEMPS365F442/$file/CDE%20Presentation%20-%202024-25%20MOY%20Progress%20Monitoring.pdf
[iii] State
Board of Education meeting, Sept. 10, 2025, “Accountability Pathways Progress
Monitoring Update.” Slide 13.
Progress Monitoring Updates - Aurora
Central Campus (Aurora Public Schools)
❖
Aurora Central Campus received a Priority Improvement - Year 11 (decreased due
to participation) rating on the 2025 Preliminary SPF
❖
Focus of Pathway Plan ➢ Partial Management (TNTP) and
Innovation, focused on enhancing instructional practices, strengthening PLCs,
goal setting, and leadership capacity building.
❖
24-25 End-of-Year Summary
➢
Aurora Central began their partnership with TNTP in 24-25, following a summer
re-hearing in 2024. The partnership has been focused on developing teacher
practices in Tier 1 Instruction and effective progress monitoring practices by
the school’s leadership, district leadership, and TNTP
❖ Data Update
➢
Despite progress in improving their attendance from previous years (7
out of 9 months demonstrated improved attendance), attendance continues to be
low at Aurora Central Campus (high 70s, low 80s for most months).
➢
Aurora Central Campus earned points for an Improvement plan but were decreased
due to participation for the second consecutive year
[iv] Colorado
Department of Education (CDE).
A.
District
and School Performance Frameworks. School
Ratings
Performance
Plan - Schools with a
Performance Plan are meeting expectations on the majority of performance
metrics.
Improvement
Plan - These schools are
identified as lower performing. They may be meeting expectations on some
performance metrics, but they are not meeting or are only approaching
expectations on many.
Priority
Improvement Plan - These schools are
identified as low performing. They are not meeting or are only approaching
expectations on most performance metrics. The state will provide support and
oversight to these schools until they improve.
Turnaround
Plan - These schools are
identified as among the lowest performing schools in the state. They are not
meeting or are only approaching expectations on most performance metrics. The
state will provide support and oversight to these schools until they improve.
https://ed.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworks
Districts and schools assigned to a Priority Improvement or Turnaround plan have the lowest student outcomes of all districts and schools in Colorado, according to the state’s primary accountability tool: the District and School Performance Framework (DPF/SPF) reports. The DPF and SPF reports are based on the key Performance Indicators: academic achievement, growth, and post-secondary and workforce readiness. Districts and schools on Priority Improvement or Turnaround plans tend to be falling short of state expectations for students in each of these areas.
“Priority Improvement and Turnaround
Districts and Schools: A Supplement to the CDE District Accountability
Handbook,” Updated August 2018. https://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/accountabilitysupplement-0
[v] “Colorado Department
of Education releases preliminary school and district frameworks,” CDE,
Sept. 3, 2025, https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2025/06/11/preliminary-2025-cmas-psat-sat-results-released-by-state/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20preliminary%202025%20PSAT,to%20an%20all%2Ddigital%20test.
[vi] YouTube of Dec. 10, 2025, State Board meeting, https://www.youtube.com/live/SIhZrrEMj1I
“For the 2025 preliminary framework, the school earned points
for an Improvement plan type but was decreased to Priority Improvement because
of assessment participation issues. The district then submitted a request
to reconsider over the fall using an allowable condition in to demonstrate that
the participation issues are not typical and that they were very close to the
95% threshold (I pasted the link and the summary from the R2R recommendations
document below from Board Docs). The state board approved this request on
Dec 10.”
[viii]
Aurora Central High School, 12/16/2025, https://central.aurorak12.org/news/what_s_new/aurora_central_earns_improvement_status
[ix] “Celebrating Burrell Campus Earning Improvement Status,” 12/16.2025. Full
letter at https://burrellarts.aurorak12.org/news/what_s_new/burrell_campus_earns_improvement_status.
Dear Burrell K-8
Community,
(Bold mine)
I am happy to share some exciting news about
our Charles Burrell campus’ performance progress. Recently, the Colorado State
Board of Education voted to finalize our appeal on our campus’ performance
framework rating. It is now official that for the first time in more than 15
years, Aurora Central High School has made enough improvement to earn a
state performance rating of “Improvement” status. I do want to emphasize
that our K-8 school’s performance has always been at the highest rating
of “Performance” since our school opened, so we are excited to
be part of this newly earned status as part of one campus, which represents a
truly significant celebration for our entire community.
Anne Ferris,
Principal, Charles Burrell K-8
[x] Colorado
Department of Education, School Performance Framework, Aurora Central Campus, https://cedar2.cde.state.co.us/documents/SPF2025/Official/0180-1458-3-Year-Official.pdf
[xi] From AV#269 – Aurora Public Schools muddies the waters before state
hearing (March
26, 2024).
“What is most
distressing is how the presentation wants to tell us about the Aurora Central
Campus. The Charles Burrell Visual and Performing Arts school, which is
currently “in a separate building less than a quarter mile away from the high
school,”[xi]
completed its first year in 2022-23. A new choice for Aurora families – good to
see. But irrelevant, in this context. Burrell Arts K-8 has not been on the
accountability clock for 14 years. The new program has nothing to do with the
hearing in April for the high school.
“Before the
State Board hearing in April, there is still time to reassess. If the goal for
APS is to show how current plans will produce a different and better high
school, the school director and principal must take the lead. If they speak
in plain English, from a school perspective, it will help. They will
need to talk about how the school’s culture, its expectations, and
everything that reflects on relationships and teaching and learning will be
significantly different.
“Above all,
the plan should not cloak the harsh reality – little progress at Aurora Central
High – behind an upbeat portrayal of the new K-12 campus. That’s just a ploy not
to be accountable.
[xii] “Denver’s Abraham Lincoln improved state rating
to yellow amid immigration
enforcement fears, other challenges,”
Chalkbeat Colorado (Jan. 23, 2026), https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/01/21/denver-abraham-lincoln-high-school-improved-state-rating-to-yellow/
But Bravo suspected he could get Lincoln’s
score up to yellow. High schools are rated based on their PSAT and SAT scores,
graduation rates, and how many of their students go on to college, the
military, or a career training program.
It was in that last category where Bravo knew Lincoln could move the
needle. The state’s data seemed incomplete, he said. Lincoln staff and the
advisers who work at the Denver Scholarship Foundation’s in-house college and
career planning center at Lincoln knew anecdotally of more graduates who had
continued their education.
So the staff began contacting former students one by one to collect the
proof they’d need, like a college class schedule, to show state officials that
the graduates had matriculated. In some cases, it became a game of social media
telephone: They could see that one graduate was connected with another who had
gone to a small community college in the mountains. Could that graduate get in
touch with their friend and tell them to call the staff at Lincoln?
In the end, Lincoln staff found more than the 13 students they needed to
bump up the school’s rating. And the state officially upgraded Lincoln’s rating
to yellow in December.
[xiii] 2025 Graduation reports. (1) -CDE data - https://ed.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/graduation-completion-statistics/data-insights-resources-archives
(2)
Colorado Chalkbeat report (Jan. 13, 2026) - https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2026/01/13/class-of-2025-graduation-rate-rose-dropout-rate-fell/
|
10 Denver high schools |
2025 4-year graduation rate |
|
DPS - all |
81.9% |
|
North High |
90.8% |
|
Thomas Jefferson |
87.3% |
|
Montbello |
85.5% |
|
George Washington |
85.4% |
|
John F Kennedy |
84.9% |
|
West High |
82% |
|
MLK Early College |
81.7% |
|
DSST Cole High |
79.5% |
|
Manual |
78.3% |
|
Abraham Lincoln |
70% |
[xv]
YouTube of Dec. 10, 2025, State Board meeting, https://www.youtube.com/live/SIhZrrEMj1I
[xvi]
SchoolView, CDE, https://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/explore/welcome
[xvii]
2025 SAT/PSAT Data and Results,
CDE, https://ed.cde.state.co.us/assessment/sat-psat/sat-psat-data
[xviii]
SchoolView, CDE, https://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/explore/welcome
[xix]
From AV #287 - Applying a second CES
principle: less is more. Perhaps just what might help three struggling high
schools, May 2025. From pages
4-5.
B. Updates to the State Board and UIPs – virtually nothing
on improving literacy/reading.
High schools like Abraham Lincoln, Adams City High, and Aurora
Central—all on Performance Watch since 2014,
if not earlier—often appear before
the State Board of Education. The longest-serving board members have seen these
schools before. They hear of the dizzying array of strategies to “dramatically
improve.” They are told that THIS TIME THESE SCHOOLS ARE REALLY, REALLY GOING
TO TURN THINGS AROUND. In response, these veteran board members sound dubious.
Even disheartened.
This seemed to be the case at the March 12 [2025] State Board meeting.
CDE staff presented mid-year updates on these schools. We heard about partial
management with (often revolving) non-profit partners. We heard of disparate
strands (innovation plans, the community school model, integration with an arts
magnet.) One school “launched” an academy model—four new academies for ninth
graders. We heard of schools improving “academic systems,” adding “a new credit
recovery program,” “focusing on strengthening academic ownership and student
discourse strategies across their classrooms,” and “balancing long-term
strategic implementation with immediate student needs.”
But we heard virtually nothing about efforts at these schools to address
the fact that the majority of their students are not demonstrating reading and
writing skills anywhere close to grade level.
As further evidence, I have studied the most recent Unified Improvement
Plans from these
schools. They show how schools can
comply with the state’s directive to complete this annual task, and yet give no
serious thought to one critical issue: seeing that students learn to read well
before they graduate.
None of the UIPs make improving the reading skills of their
students a priority.
Incredible as it may seem, reading is hardly mentioned.
[xx] Colorado PSAT and SAT results, CDE, https://ed.cde.state.co.us/assessment/sat-psat/sat-psat-data.
[xxi] Christina Wirth-Hawkins, Chief Assessment Officer at CDE, speaking at the State Board meeting, August 21, 2025. “It can be jarring to see the percentage of students who are meeting or exceeding expectations for CMAS ELA [my addition – roughly 45%] compared with what we see with PSAT and SAT in Reading and Writing [my addition -roughly 63%]. CMAS, she explained, has “a really tight alignment to the full breadth and depth of the Colorado Academic Standards in terms of reading and writing.” Students are not only answering multiple choice questions on CMAS; she said they also “engage in writing tasks … [they] are looking at longer passages and integrating across multiple passages to answer questions because those expectations are included in our standards.”
MY CONTEXT for CDE’s
comment, “It can be jarring to see…”
For grades 3-8, the average CMAS scores have
remained below 50%, for every grade and every year, since we moved to this new
assessment in 2016. Last year 43.5% of our 8th graders Met or
Exceeded Expectations on CMAS-English language Arts
But for grades 9-10, the average PSAT
Reading/Writing scores have been 60% or better. What we see, then, is a
surprising jump in scores once students reach 9th grade.
|
COLORADO |
Grade |
Percent Met/Exceeded
Expectations in 2025 |
|
CMAS – English Language
Arts |
7 |
48.8 |
|
8 |
43.5 |
|
|
PSAT – Reading/Writing |
9 |
65.4 |
|
10 |
63.5 |
[xxii] AV #222, “The PSAT and SAT do not work well for perhaps 25% of our high schools - As we examine how best to improve the School Performance Framework, let’s ask if these tests are meaningful – and helpful - for many of our high schools and their students.” Jan. 12, 2021.
[xxiii]
“Colorado Charter Schools Performance Report” (p. 4), Keystone Policy Center,
January 2025, https://www.keystone.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KPC-026-Charter-Academic-Report_r2.pdf
[xxiv] “Growth Fact Sheet,” Colorado Department of Education, https://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/growth-fact-sheet-for-parents#:~ From CDE’s Growth Fact Sheet:
“HOW DOES
IT WORK?
… a child
who scores in the 60th percentile grew academically as well or better than 60
percent of his or her academic peers on those tests.
WHAT IS
CONSIDERED LOW GROWTH, TYPICAL GROWTH OR HIGH GROWTH?
As defined
by the Colorado State Board of Education, a child who falls below the 35
percentile for growth is considered to have made low growth.”
From CDE’s SchoolView - “For the Academic Growth performance
indicator, the framework assigns ratings based on median student growth
percentile (MGPs) and Percent On-Track to Proficiency calculations that are
generated using the Colorado Growth Model…. At the high school level, PSAT/SAT
Evidence Based Reading & Writing and Math are used for growth
determinations.” https://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/explore/growth
[xxv] “Performance Frameworks - Official
Performance Ratings,” CDE,
https://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/frameworks/welcome.
Find the school. Then – see box on right – click on Growth.
[xxvi]
Two sources:
1) From The Hawaii Growth Model : An Explanation of Student
Growth Percentiles - https://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/StriveHIIndexReports/HawaiiGrowthModelFAQs.pdf
2) From AI – “The 60th Percentile Benchmark: Many models, such as Colorado's Growth Model, categorize growth between the 35th and 65th percentiles as ‘typical’. To actually ‘catch up’ and move toward proficiency, growth often needs to be in the ‘High Growth’ category, typically defined as exceeding the 65th percentile.” (AI search – Feb. 2, 2026) (Bold mine)
“… students who demonstrate 50th percentile or better growth have made at least a year’s worth of growth while those students who demonstrated less than 50th percentile growth did not make a year’s worth of growth. This definition of a year’s growth is consistent with the reality that many students achieving at the well below proficient level need to make much more than a year’s worth of growth to ‘catch-up’ to proficiency. Such students might need to demonstrate 75th percentile growth or higher to make up for starting deficits.”
[xxvii]
“Pupil Membership Statistics,” Colorado
Department of Education, https://ed.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/pupilmembership-statistics
[xxviii]
State Board meeting, CDE, March 12, 2025. https://go.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/DEMPS365F442/$file/CDE%20Presentation%20-%202024-25%20MOY%20Progress%20Monitoring.pdf
[xxix]
Attendance Statistics, Colorado Department of Education, https://ed.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/attendancestatistics
No comments:
Post a Comment