AV#246 - Lesson from Adams 14 debacle: the state needs to act sooner

 

Special issue - follow-up to the to the marathon State Board of Education Accountability Hearing on April 14 on Adams 14

 

Lesson from the Adams 14 debacle: the state needs to act sooner 

If we looked at the evidence in 2016 or 2017 and intervened then, we might have prevented this crisis 

All who have followed the turmoil around the Adams 14 School District and MGT Consulting “partnership” will agree: we must do everything we can to be sure this never happens again.

What lessons can we learn from this disaster? I imagine the State Board of Education and the Colorado Department of Education have started a list titled: what not to repeat.

The lesson I draw speaks to time: when we see chronic low performance, we must act sooner. No district or school should reach Year 9 on the accountability clock - period. “Ongoing progress monitoring,” once we hit year 3, and then 4, 5, 6, 7, … It is too little, too late. If we are serious about school and district accountability, we cannot allow so many years to pass before taking decisive steps.

Regarding Adams 14, the distress signals were clear years ago. (Wasn’t Aurora City High’s UIP in 2015 a cry for help? See page 7.) Couldn’t we have found a way to respond to all the red flags much sooner? 

As a nation we are getting better at creating effective Early Warning Systems (EWS)[1] in anticipation of natural disasters. They save lives. I believe we need some kind of EWS for districts or schools that demonstrate chronic low achievement. It, too, might save lives. An exaggeration? Do you think that a child’s life is not harmed by spending 8, and then 9, and now 10 years in schools that fail to provide the education they deserve? As I have written before, we should be ashamed. We must do better.

Listen to the Commissioner of Education and State Board members acknowledge how much time has passed since we began to see the alarming student outcomes in Adams 14.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              All bold mine   

From the Colorado State Board of Education meeting on Jan. 28, 2022.                                                       

1.      Commissioner of Education Katy Anthes – explaining to those in the Adams 14 community who wonder why the State Board and CDE have been so involved in their district. 

“When schools have challenges and aren’t ensuring access [to a quality, thorough, uniform, well-rounded education] for all of the students, the law directs us to step in and help. We have been working alongside many of your amazing staff for years, but unfortunately we have not been able to create, and the district has not been able to create, a sustainable leadership needed to create that world-class education system. Despite all the state and federal supports provided and individual principals, educators, and students working hard day in and day out, this district been among the lowest in the state for many years. Supports that have helped many other districts improve have not been able to take hold in this district due to the constant churn of leaders, even despite CDE and the State Board allocating more than $5.3 million in extra money … in helping their turnaround efforts.” 

2.      State Board Vice-Chairperson Steve Durham presented some of the history behind the current crisis, provided as “context” for how we need to evaluate Adams 14 in 2022. He gave the results on the Colorado School Performance Framework from 2010 to 2019. (He pointed out the accountability pause in 2015 and the fact that, given the impact of COVID, we have had no ratings since 2019.) 

                Colorado School Performance Framework (SPF) Ratings for Adams 14

2009-10	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19
TR	TR	TR	PI	PI	TR	PI	PI	PI

              TR =- Turnaround – lowest rating on SPF             PI = Priority Improvement – 2^nd lowest rating

Durham also listed the number of schools in Adams 14 (in a district of 11 schools) receiving one of these lowest ratings – roughly half of the schools each year over that 10-year period. He concluded:

“I think it’s impossible for anybody who has been on the board, whether it’s for six months, or a year, or seven years, or even longer, as is the case of Dr. Schroeder, to ignore what is in the public record and what is history …”

From the Colorado State Board of Education meeting on April 14, 2022.

3.      Although Dr. Karla Esser is one of the newest board members, her own timeline with Adams 14 goes back over two decades. As a professor at Regis University with a focus on bilingualism and multilingualism, Esser began her involvement with the district, as she put it, “either doing professional development or working with your bilingual education group,” in 1998. To her, 

“… the question becomes, how do we heal the community so that we are able to create the best possible schooling we can for these kids? This has been going on since I got here in 1998 - every two years - it’s not water under the bridge, it’s the bridge under water - it just keeps rolling and we need to do something now. What is going to change now?”

4.      State Board Chairperson Angelika Schroeder:

 

“I feel that for me there is not quite enough of a sense of urgency… but the kids (in the Adams 14 School District) who started kindergarten in 2010 [when the district was first placed on the accountability clock], they’re now juniors [in high school]. That spooks me. And so I don’t want to be slow ... You all ought to have that super sense of urgency.” 

I believe all four state leaders were saying that the harm being done has gone on way too long. The implication, as I read it: we had good reason to be bolder five or six years ago.

I would not claim that Another View has always been right in its efforts to highlight low-performing schools. I am aware how incomplete my understanding has been, and is, of the complexities and challenges facing such schools. But I will admit to being disappointed that my “warnings” over many years made so little difference. Going forward, can’t we put in place a policy and structures so that such warnings come from those at the state level, with the authority to act swiftly, to help the students and to intervene on their behalf, much much sooner? 

The Addendum indicates where Another View raised concerns over from 2009-2017 about a number of our lowest-performing schools. By 2017, we had plenty of data on Adams 14, and in particular on Adams City High School. Like the district, ACHS has also been on Priority Improvement or Turnaround since 2010. Nothing conclusive here, but I believe had we been paying closer attention—had an EWS flashed red—we could have acted sooner. Surely we could have prevented the current unholy mess.

Addendum – Excerpts from 10 newsletters, 2009-2017, on Adams 14, ACHS, and accountability

 

 

AV#59 – Aug. 2009 – Could high schools be part of the high school dropout problem?

 

But here is a list of schools that graduate less than two-thirds of their students.  We agree, don’t we, this should change.  Which means—doesn’t it? —that these schools need some fundamental change.  

 

                                                         District              2008 graduate rate (from CDE web site)

Sheridan High School                     Sheridan                                            61.7

Westminster High School             Westminster 50                                60.5

Montbello High School                  DPS                                                    59.2

Adams City High School                Adams 14                                          58.9

 

Another list … includes entire districts with graduation rates below 66% (2008 rate - from CDE website):

                     Adams County 14                                                                                        41.1

                     Denver Public Schools                                                                                48.6

                     Mapleton 1                                                                                                     59.4 

 

AV#79 – June 2011 - Graduation Rates in Colorado for Hispanic Students

                                            52%? 57.8%? 55.5%? – Not good enough   

                                 2009- OLD FORMULA                                                 2010 – NEW “ON TIME” FORMULA

GRADUATION RATES	2009 ALL students	2009 Hispanic students		2010* ALL students	Hispanic Final Graduation Base	Hispanic Graduates	2010* Hispanic students
COLORADO	74.6	57.8		72.4	16,001	8,881	55.5
Adams 14	51.9	49.2		57	412	220	53.4

 

AV#88 – Sept. 2012 – Aurora Central High - The Case for State Intervention

Colorado Public High School Graduates Assigned to Remediation in Colorado Public Higher Education, FY 2010-11 (Fall 2010 Enrollment) 

High School	District	Remediation rates- 2011	# in remediation classes / # of students from this high school attending a Colorado college
1.      West	DPS	89.6%	43/48
2.      Montbello	DPS	80.0%	76/95
3.      Abraham Lincoln	DPS	78.3%	72/92
4.      Harrison	Harrison 2	75.5%	40/53
5.      Aurora Central	Aurora	73.8%	59/80
6.      North	DPS	72.6%	45/62
7.      Adams City	Adams 14	71.8%	51/71
8.      Sierra	Harrison 2	67.6%	48/71

       High Poverty High Schools and Low ACT Composite Scores –

 

High School	District	Poverty Rate- fall 2011	ACT Composite 2012	ACT Reading  2012
Bruce Randolph	DPS	97.6%	16	14.9
Abraham Lincoln		93%	15.5	15
Manual		92.5%	16.1	15.3
West		87.3%	14.9	14.6
Montbello		85.7%	15	14.3
North		84.3%	15.2	15.2
Adams City	Adams 14	80.8%	15.6	15
STATE of COLORADO		41%	19.4	20.1
ACT score considered “college-ready”				21

 

Growth and “Catching up”

It is good to see Aurora Central did not have growth percentiles under 40% in reading as we see in high schools like Sheridan High (39%) and Adams City High (36.5%). 

High Schools Receiving School Improvement Grants  

                                         … among 100 schools identified in need of dramatic change 

According to the report, “School Turnarounds in Colorado - Untangling a Web of Supports for Struggling Schools,” by Julie Kowal and Joe Ableidinger of Public Impact, at CDE’s web site: 

“Between 2009 and 2010, the state identified nearly 100 schools for dramatic intervention, including 19 schools under the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) Program and 82 schools under the state Education Accountability Act (EAA).” 

The state identified five large high schools, listed below.  Low achievement for these schools has been noted earlier in this report. From Appendix of the “Schools Turnaround in Colorado” report: 

     Schools Identified for Intervention under the 2009 SIG Program and Colorado’s EAA in 2010.)

 

High School	District
Adams City High School	Adams 14
Alameda High School	Jefferson County
Central High	Pueblo City 60
Montbello High	Denver Public Schools
North High	Denver Public Schools

 

AV#92 – Jan. 2013 – Regional economic development works. Why not a regional recovery school district?

SB 163 – The clock is ticking towards some kind of dramatic intervention.  Why wait? 

State law adds urgency to such a look: SB 163, the 2009 Educational Accountability Act, means many schools now face a deadline.  CDE’s 2012 School Performance Framework puts over 30 Colorado high schools in the two lowest accreditation categories, Priority Improvement or Turnaround.  In the metro area, Adams City High, Aurora Central High, and Westminster High have been so ranked for three straight years.

District	School	Final Accreditation Category			Final % Points Earned	Entering Year on Priority Improvement or Turnaround
		2010	2011	2012	2012
Adams County 14	Adams City High School	Turnaround Plan	Priority Improvement Plan	Priority Improvement Plan	35.9	Year 3

 

 ColoradoSchoolGrades.com – High Schools in Metro Denver scoring D or below

District	School	Overall grade	Ranking (out of 327 high schools)	Overall Academic Proficiency	Academic Proficiency in:				Overall Academic Growth	Grad rate	% low income
					Reading	Math	English	Science
Adams County 14	Adams City H. S.	F	324	F	F	D-	F	F	F	63%	81%

AV#117 – Aug. 2014 – Denialism

On-time (4-year) graduation rate

2012-13	Graduation rate
COLORADO - TOTAL	76.9%
5 metro area districts
Denver	61.3%
Adams 14	59.4%
Aurora	52.6%
Mapleton	47.8%
Sheridan	40.2%

 

AV#136 – Sept. 2015 - “Local control” not enough; the state still has a key role in accountability

    High schools in low-performing districts need help

Though “only one test,” ACT results reminds us why we should not wait until 2016-17 to act

I offer a look here at five urban districts that, like Sheridan, have entered year 5 on Priority Improvement or Turnaround (Adams 14, Pueblo 60, Sheridan, and Westminster 50) on the District Performance Framework or, as with Aurora Public Schools, is in year 4. Within these five districts we find—to no one’s surprise—a number of our lowest-performing high schools.  Any news on their progress?

ACT scores – 2012-2015 - high schools in 5 districts on year 4 or 5 of accountability “clock” 

	2012	2013	2014	2015	2014-15
STATE	20.0	20.14	20.31	20.1	down
ADAMS COUNTY 14	15.31	15.9	15.99	15.6	down
Adams City High School	15.55	16.15	16.12	15.9	down – 2nd straight year

When I listen to the words of leaders from our lowest-performing school districts “on the clock,” I only grow more doubtful that “local control,” in their hands, makes sense. Unkind of me, and perhaps unfair. But I hope community members in these districts are listening to “goals” like these:   

Adams 14 -  March 2014: “Our goal is to improve from ‘priority improvement’ to ‘distinction,’ said Kathy Steel, assistant superintendent for Adams 14, referencing the state’s accreditation rating.  “People are talking about going from worst to first. Our people are determined.”

Members of the state board applauded the district’s efforts but wondered if the district, which self-admittedly has much more room to improve, would beat the clock.

“We’ll be sliding in sideways,” said (superintendent Pat) Sanchez, who has been a vocal critic of (the) state’s accountability clock. 

A year later … on their way to distinction? 

Two words apply: GET REAL!

 

AV#142—Jan. 2016 - Brief for the new Commissioner – SIG and the bottom 5%

Welcome Mr. Crandall.... We are grateful you want to take on this tremendous responsibility to strengthen public education in our state, and we wish you the best…  I thought you’d appreciate a quick look at recent turnaround efforts in the “bottom 5%” of Colorado schools, serving close to 50,000 kids.

You know of the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG)–roughly $7 billion committed (Education Week, Jan 6, 2016)—to improve the country’s lowest-performing schools.… 

How has this initiative gone in Colorado? I present a list of external reviews—mostly articles, newsletters, and reports—on the $70 million in SIG funds directed to Colorado for this turnaround work, written between 2011 and 2015…. You will get the message. Our efforts, overall, have fared badly.…  

 

I wish you, the State Board of Education, and CDE well as you explore what lessons Colorado can take from the past few years—and what we can do better in 2016 and beyond. 

 

 

AV#150 – July 2016 - Adams 14 School District – Year 5 on clock, new superintendent, “right there”

 

“What did the superintendent know and when did he know it?”

So why worry that this new superintendent will be as stunned as previous leaders who come in and open the books and find the district is “in the red” in so many ways it’s hard to know where to begin?

Reason 1:  from “Who will land perhaps one of the toughest superintendent jobs in Colorado?” – Chalkbeat Colorado (7/12/16)

    Finding a superintendent with successful experience improving student learning has been paramount in the search, said David Rolla, the Adams 14 school board president.

   “We want somebody who has been involved in turnaround before so hopefully we don’t have to give up any of our schools,” Rolla said. “Many of our schools are right there. They just need someone to get them over the hump where we need them to be.” 

“Right there”?  “Over the hump”?  See overview of Adams 14 [on following page. It showed that five schools in the district were on the accountability clock.] 

Adams 14’s Colorado’s Unified Improvement Plan for Districts for 2015-16

(All quotes from UIP; all phrases highlighted in bold by me.)

How are students performing? Where will the district focus attention?

We have yet to meet local or state expectations in any content in achievement or growth across our district.

We have yet to meet local or state expectations for English Language Acquisition in achievement or growth across our district.

We have yet to consistently meet local or state expectations in postsecondary and workforce readiness and student engagement. 

Why is the education system continuing to have these challenges?

Standard 1 – Standards and Instructional Planning: The district has not consistently implemented a curriculum that is aligned to Colorado Academic Standards or consistently ensures rigorous, effective instructional planning.

Standard 2 – Best First Instruction: Instructional staff members do not consistently provide aligned, integrated, and research-based instruction that engages students cognitively and ensures that students learn to mastery.

Standard 6 – Culture and Climate: The district does not consistently function as an effective learning community and does not fully support a climate conducive to performance excellence for students and staff.

“Taken together, Adams 14 continues to perform distressingly below the state expectation in all content areas.” District UIP

Review of Current Performance (identify challenges and their magnitude):

 

The academic proficiency cut points at the 15%ile range for reading, math, writing, and science were not met at any of the grade spans in 2014. Extensive and comprehensive work remains to bring proficiency levels to state expectations at the 50th percentile band.

 

… The elementary and high schools did not achieve AGP [Adequate Growth Percentile] in any content area, except the elementary level achieved AGP in English language proficiency.

**

Courage, imagination, and – maybe above all – honesty

What a challenge for a superintendent: to come in new and try to fundamentally transform a low-performing school district – of over 70,000 students, as DPS was in 2005 when [Michael] Bennet came on board, or over 7,000 in Adams 14 today… My purpose here is to help Dr. Abrego and Adams 14 be honest.  

This overview presents enough evidence, I hope, to assert: Adams 14, it is not clear you have made real progress of late, you are not “right there,” and you must face the harsh facts if you’re ever going to “get there.”    

 

AV#158 – Feb. 2017 - Attendance & Absences – if 90% of life is showing up … 

PRESS RELEASE – Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC)

Washington, D.C., June 7, 2016

NEW OCR* BRIEF SHOWS U.S. SCHOOLS FACING CRISIS IN STUDENT ATTENDANCE

The release of the first-ever national compilation of data on how many public school students are missing so much school they are academically at risk shows the country is facing a crisis of chronic absence that’s keeping millions of kids from learning. (*Office of Civil Rights-U.S. Department of Education)

School District	No. Students Chronically Absent	% Students Chronically Absent	% Pop. in Poverty Age 5-17	% Minority Students
Pueblo City – District 60	5,682	31.46	29.00	73.80
Adams County – 14	2,315	30.40	29.40	86.80

It is startling, is it not—the notion that 3 in 10 students miss that much school in Pueblo and Adams 14?

 

AV#159 – March 2017 – When “on the clock,” Innovation Status to the rescue! – On what basis? 

           Three districts line up around Innovation Zone or Innovation Plans 

It is troubling when you see a district in trouble try a “reform” without evidence it has proven effective elsewhere … followed by a second district, also in dire straits, try the same “reform”… and then you hear that a third—might step down this blind alley….  As of 2015, here was their 5-year SPF rating. 

Colorado School Performance Framework (SPF) Rating

	2009-10	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14
Pueblo City Schools	Priority Improvement  year 1	Turnaround  year 2	Priority Improvement  year 3	Priority Improvement  year 4	Priority Improvement  year 5
Aurora Public Schools	Improvement	Priority Improvement  year 1	Priority Improvement year 2	Priority Improvement  year 3	Priority Improvement  year 4
Adams 14	Turnaround  year 1	Turnaround  year 2	Turnaround  year 3	Priority Improvement – year 4	Priority Improvement – year 5

Adams 14 School District

Later last fall [2016], the state education department “rejected Adams County School District 14’s attempt to avoid state sanctions for continued poor academic performance” (from article, here).  But innovation plans—according to press reports—were still on.

Adams 14 will retain low rating, setting district up for state sanctions

By Yesenia Robles, Chalkbeat Colorado, Dec. 13, 2016

   The decision is a significant blow for Adams 14 because the district is one of five in the state that are facing state sanctions for earning low ratings on the state’s evaluations for five years. The state has a small number of options to deal with the low-performing districts, including closing schools, merging districts or turning over management to a third party. 

I attended the Adams 14 school board meeting on Feb. 14 and learned then that the district would only seek innovation status for its high school.…  A few days later Dr. Abrego and district leaders gave me reasons for the change in thinking….  But we must ask: can we find an equally low-performing high school that has made dramatic improvement by gaining Innovation Status? 

[1] Early warning systems (EWS) are key elements of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, and aim to avoid or reduce the damages caused from hazards. To be effective, early warning systems need to actively involve the people and communities at risk from a range of hazards, … disseminate messages and warnings efficiently and ensure that there is a constant state of preparedness and that early action is enabled. The significance of an effective early warning system lies in the recognition of its benefits by local people.  https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/adaptation-options/establishment-of-early-warning-systems

 

AV#245 - District nonsense

 

District nonsense

palaver – def. - unnecessarily elaborate or complex procedure

 

“The vast majority of innovation school principals who answered the survey—86%—opposed the proposal [to limit school autonomy]. They expressed concerns about Denver Public Schools shifting from a district that values autonomy to one where schools are run in a top-down, one-size-fits-all way.” Chalkbeat Colorado, 3/11/22

 

My thanks to Federico Pena, former mayor of Denver, for his Guest Commentary in The Denver Post this past weekend: “Denver’s students are floundering; where’s the school board?”

In three sentences he captured some of the gap between the board and the community. 

·        “Denver innovation schools have had greater autonomy over their contracts with teachers and more control over their school budgets, schedules and academics.

·        “Overwhelmingly, educators, families and community members spoke in opposition to the board’s policy [imposing limits on a school’s autonomy] with more than 1,800 people signing a petition to ask the board to reject it.

·     “Still, the board voted to approve the executive limitation.”

 

The articles above refer to Denver; the example in AV#245 comes from Aurora. Different issues, but a similar dissonance. 

** 

One reason so many educators are keen to see that their school has greater autonomy from the district is to avoid the gibberish they see coming out of the central office.

Advocates for innovation and charter schools make the case (which seems self-evident) that they know their school community better than the men and women working in the district office. Better, too, than is feasible for members of the school board, all volunteers, busy with their own jobs. Especially true in Colorado’s 30 biggest districts—from Adams 14 (over 6,000 students), on up to DPS (89,000). Semi-autonomous schools can make decisions based on their own mission, culture, and current priorities. This simple and yet powerful shift of authority avoids the structures and the outside control (and the nearly inevitable one-size-fits-all mentality) we see in our larger districts.

Perhaps it helps to give an example of what self-governing schools are happy to avoid. What sounds like nonsensical systems-thinking from district leaders. Babbling away … or Babeling, as in the Tower of…

This comes from a local school board focused on the critical issue of staff retention. And a key subset of that: recruiting and retaining teachers of color. Important matters, to be sure.

But by highlighting statements presented by district officials, I hope you, too, will see more palaver here than good sense. A school person—a principal and any teacher in a leadership role at a school determined to address teacher retention—will be inclined to wonder: How convoluted can you get! And oh yes, did anyone ask me about this work?     

Staff Retention (Attrition by Reason) Other employment in education Employment outside of education Family care Formal study or research Contact non-renewal Illness Job dissatisfaction Military Moving/Relocation Retiring Other Human Capital Update, presented by HR to APS board, Oct. 19, 2021.[i]

In most cases, principals learn why teachers plan to leave in their one-on-one conversations. (Having left five teaching jobs, I am familiar with these March/April discussions.) Life happens; we leave for a host of reasons. (One local district listed ten reasons teachers move on—see box. “Job dissatisfaction” was just one; it was a key factor less than 5% of the time for teachers of color, less than 6% for all teachers.) When discontent is the main cause, that one-on-one talk, if honest, can be difficult, but of great value for a principal who truly listens. No need to hire a national research firm to “retool our retention focus group protocol” and “complete the full analysis … then develop a comprehensive report … then launch that information out to all out stakeholders.” Good grief.

Let me add (and perhaps this is a partial excuse for the babbling), all of what follows began in the 6^th hour of a school board meeting, and went into the 7^th hour, after midnight. Again, good grief!

Why do schools want independence from what the central office is thinking and planning and power-pointing deep into the night?

Why do schools wish to free themselves from the systems-thinkers at district headquarters, who operate in a different reality? Because of this kind of foolishness.

Here you are: March 22, 2022. A meeting of the Aurora Public Schools Board of Education. It began shortly after 6 p.m. It is now close to 11:10. The Human Resources Division is making a presentation.

Listen and look for clarity and common sense. Ask principals you hold in high regard: 

Critics of the public education system often start there, that it is a system. One where the voice of school people, i.e., educators, is drowned out by the louder noise from the systems-thinkers who profess “to see the whole picture.”   For this very reason, these critics are less inclined to fault rural districts. Such districts often think and act more like schools. Especially when they are one and the same.    As is the case in a district I visited in late March. One K-12 school. One of Colorado’s 110 small rural districts (under 1,000 students). I attended the school board meeting. It began at 6:30. It ended at 7:56. The superintendent (who is also the elementary school principal) spoke like a school person. What a relief. If I heard the word “systems” once, it must have been in the report on Building and Grounds.

Are there any ideas here that speak to your efforts to recruit and retain the best staff? Do you need (or even want) “models from the corporate sector” to do this work? 

Reader, out of respect for you, I will stop quoting after three pages. Enough here, I trust, to make you appreciate why innovation, charter, and independent schools say: we are glad to be free of this nonsense. 

**

“Countering the Great Resignation,” presented by Damon Smith, Chief Personnel Officer, Human Resources Division, Aurora Public Schools. (This is my own transcription of what Mr. Smith and Mr. Vigil had to say. I apologize for any errors.)

SLIDE 2 – Presentation Purpose                                   (All in bold is directly from the 24 slides.) … information on a component of the APS Human Capital Plan.  SLIDE 4 - The Great Resignation in Education Questions about instructional modalities (in-person, remote and hybrid), COVID positive and symptomatic students/staff, a lack of substitutes for class coverage and dysregulated students and colleagues are all factors that have contributed to the stressors that today’s educators experience.

SLIDE 12 – Gather Employee Insights  Retention focus groups “We engage our staff members in retention focus groups.” [The district has been doing this for the 15 years Smith has been with APS, and for several years prior to that.]  “The one difference that is taking place for 2021-22 … is that we’re moving it away from our homegrown approach to our reaching out to a national research firm, Hanover Research, and asked them to completely retool our retention focus group protocols, and then we’ve also hired them to come in and actually facilitate those retention focus groups so that we can gain insights from our employees as to what’s working, what’s not working. Hanover Research will then complete the full analysis of the data that we receive and then develop a comprehensive report that will then be provided back to the school district. “Our intent is to then launch that information out to all of our stakeholders so that they can see what was it that our employees said that either brings them back or areas of concern that might be driving them away.”  “And then lastly we’re looking to reinstate the district’s good idea program,” which Slide 12 explains is: an opportunity for staff to make suggestions for operational changes resulting in business efficiencies and/or cost savings. If an employee’s idea is implemented, they are provided a financial award.

SLIDE 13 – Ample Employee Recognition  “One of the things that we’ve recognized is we need to do a better job in recognizing our staff for their work. And that aligns with yet another one of the recommendations coming from the Society of Human Resources Management – ample employee recognition. So next fall we will be launching APS’ attitude of gratitude.” APS Action Aurora Public Schools’ Attitude of Gratitude – By accessing expertise and models from the corporate sector, an employee recognitions program is being developed for 2022-23 that can be implemented at both the site and district levels and facilitate staff recognition for work contributions and engaging in behaviors that exemplify APS’ values.  Suggested components of the employee recognition program [includes]: ·        In addition to district level activities, a repository of streamlined employee recognition activities that can be implemented at the site level are being developed.  “This is an opportunity for us to specifically call out and recognize employees in our system who are doing outstanding work. And the way that we are doing that is borrowing some strategies from the private sector, and looking at how they support and recognize their employees and then creating a repository, …  a ‘recognition in a box’ sort of approach, so that site supervisors across the system have the opportunity to have a variety of activities at their fingertips that they can employ to recognize staff. We don’t want to go out and say to our site leaders we need you to uptick staff recognition and not give them some tangible tools that they can easily access and then start to implement across the school district.”                                                                                                                                                                          [NOTE: Do you know any good “site supervisor” (this is the principal, yes?) seeking said “repository”?]

SLIDE 15 – Update compensation plan/schedules regularly  “Other approaches that we’re looking at that we believe will impact overall staff retention is looking at how we address class coverage…. This is one [area] where you receive the greatest amount of concern.”  Considered approaches to class coverage [includes]            [NOTE: What if principals say they ·     Increase the daily rate of compensation for substitutes    would prefer to find/hire subs, people        hired through Kelly Education                                              they know and who know their kids, ·     Adjust the hourly rate for class coverage (to be negotiated)         rather than hire through        rates could be tiered based on the school substitute fill rate             a private company?] ·     Incentivize regular staff attendance; staff members at each site receive a cash bonus by meeting   monthly staff attendance rate goals (to be negotiated)    NOTE: Please re-read that sentence.                                                                                                                                Isn’t showing up called doing your job?]

SLIDES 19-24 – APS- Promise54 Action Plan Presentation by Antonio Vigil, Principal on Special Assignment for Promise54 Action Plan

SLIDE 19 - APS- Promise54 Action Plan - From Current to Future State  ● The Promise54 Action Plan, when functioning as a cross-divisional system, aspires to become a core technology to help us achieve the above goals. SLIDE 20 – Setting Intentions The seven goals of the APS- P54 Action Plan originate from best industry practices associated with BIPOC (Black Indigenous People of Color).

REMINDER: It is now AFTER 12:00 p.m. The meeting is in its 7th hour.       It will end in ten minutes. Here is more of what the board had to endure.

SLIDE 24 – Goal 6: Build a working environment that respects the presence of cultural differences in the system.  [Mr. Vigil spoke of work done over several years that has led up to Promise54.} “I’ve been working with our affinity groups … so building on that work we systematized the affinity group process so everything is completely systematized in the way of how you go through the steps, how you become an affinity group, there’s a google site dedicated to it, how you interact with it, it’s very simple, it’s very transparent and up-front, there’s also an evaluative rubric that really demonstrates how affinity groups as they apply to become district-sponsored affinity groups that is very transparent as well, and so there’s a very lock-step process in how you become one of those district-sponsored groups.  “And so currently we now have … two official district-sponsored affinity groups – one is our Black African-American affinity group and the second one is our Latinx affinity group … so we have some really strong leadership that is working collaboratively within all those spaces to really create that sense of belonging and that culture of cultural responsiveness to really ensure that our teachers, our staff [are] finding the solace and unity and the community required to really have brave and safe conversations about change and support.”  A question comes from a board member about the sustainability and long-term plans of Promise54  “The whole idea is to look at it from a systems-based approach, to look at it from a cross-divisional, a cross-functional approach, and really serve as a nexus. And so what I’ve been doing is meeting with all the different teams and it’s been really effective because we’re able to sit down and talk about how the alignment with the work is shared across the different divisions – so I think what is happening is that there is now a more organic and automated cadence of the work, whereas when we first started talking about it, trying to figure out like bringing clarity to how we show up and how we engage, but more importantly then, how do we have metrics to really evaluate the progress we are making tethered to the goals. It’s not enough to simply say, we check the box and now we have compliance around fulfilling the promise of this specific goal. So I think the sustainability lies within the structures that I am working to build intentionally with those cross-divisional supports and making sure that this shows up on their agenda, that it is part of their daily recognition of how we show up with the work. I think that we’re seeing a lot of progress with those cross-divisional relationships with HR and P54, DOEL and P54, and now COMs and P54, so those are all the cross-divisional relationships that we are working on to establish those systems to maintain and sustain [the work].  From Damon Smith’s concluding remarks:  “We’ve identified a number of activities, but I think it’s important to recognize and hear what Mr. Vigil is indicating. It’s about changing systems. It’s about looking at the way that we conduct our business and changing the systems so that it is sustainable long-term, versus a series of activities that we’re engaged in, year over year, and on a sporadic basis.”

 

 

Is it possible that those operating inside the system they seek to change become victims of that very system? Trapped, unable to step outside and see matters in a new light?  

A school’s freedom to determine its own policies does not mean it will always see clearly and make the right choices. But it will be less inclined than a school district to emit a lot of hot air. The less a school is subject to what simply gets in the way – as systems-gobbledygook is inclined to do – the better chance it has to succeed.

---

[i] 2021 Human Capital Update, from the Division of Human Resources, Oct. 19, 2021, slide #18.    https://go.boarddocs.com/co/aurora/Board.nsf/files/C7QKVJ528CEE/$file/HR%20Human%20Capital%20Presentation%20Oct.%2019%2C%202021.pdf

AV#244 - Why close a school: low enrollment, or poor performance?

 

Aurora Public Schools and Denver Public Schools are intent on closing several elementary schools, not because of poor performance, but because they are too small.

There are at least two reasons to question this policy.

One, school people—unlike district folks—ask: Who decided we cannot create a good school if it “only” serves somebody’s “minimum number”? With 300 or so students, we know our kids well. In fact, by third grade, every student in the building is known, by name, to the entire faculty and staff. Don’t the kids here feel safe? Doesn’t our smaller size support the kind of climate and culture that is essential to our school mission? Is bigger always better?

They wonder, too, why APS and DPS have chosen to make school size such a priority. In the metro area, in Adams County and Jefferson County alone, more than 100 schools enroll under 350 students. Across the state, over 700 schools are this “small.” In many rural districts 350 would be a big school. In fact, over 70 Colorado school districts enroll fewer than 350 students.

I feel lucky to have taught in two nationally recognized schools enrolling fewer than 320 students. I find the case made by APS and DPS unpersuasive.

The chief reason for this new focus: Fiscal responsibility. The districts say a school must enroll a certain number of students to be “financially viable.” On Feb. 15, Aurora superintendent Rico Munn told his board: “We are doing this because of declining enrollment, so we have more space than we can efficiently use.” The district’s presentation that evening asserted: “In our current structure, small comprehensive schools are: Inefficient, Unsustainable, Inequitable.”

In theory, perhaps true. But why not ask how the students are doing.

Which is the second reason. If improving student outcomes is the chief responsibility of a school board, why set that aside in these discussions? Why did none of the district’s “Guiding Questions” on Feb. 15 connect school closure to student performance?

Only six years ago Denver put in place the School Performance Compact. Two main factors in considering closure or “restart” for a school: “Rank in the bottom 5 percent of all DPS schools based on multiple years of school ratings; [and] fail to show an adequate amount of growth on the most recent state tests.”

This policy became unpopular. The outcry over closing schools like Gilpin Montessori, Greenlee, and Amesse no doubt played a role in the “flip” of the Denver school board. Several current board members campaigned against “punishing” schools with closure.  

Last summer DPS listed 19 schools that might be under review. The state’s 2019 (pre-Covid) performance rating found three of those schools on Priority Improvement or Turnaround status, while seven earned the highest rating. No matter. All enrolled under 400 students.

More blowback. Denver’s board now supports “establishing common criteria for closure” (see box).

“Denver’s school closure criteria committee now seeking applicants”  (Chalkbeat Colorado, Jan 21, 2022)    “In November, Marrero jettisoned the list of 19 schools and switched the district’s approach. Instead of convening regional groups to make recommendations on closing specific schools, the district would form a single committee to establish common criteria for closure that could be applied to any underenrolled school.    “The district launched a webpage and opened the application process Friday for what it’s calling the Declining Enrollment Advisory Committee.”  (Bold mine)                                        Question:                                                Why not a Declining Performance Committee?

APS is even more explicit it stating what its closure policy is not. At that Feb. 15 board meeting, the district presented two approaches, one that places “a focus on individual school programs, stories, and performance.” The regional approach was preferred, “where the focus is on best utilization of resources for all students within the region.” 

So it was not surprising that the district’s 100-page power point presentation made no mention of the different student outcomes at the six schools in Region 1 under review. And yet, I would ask, if the state’s School Performance Framework lists Park Lane Elementary on Year Two on the accountability clock, why is that not a factor when making any tough decision about closure? 

APS and DPS claim their work these days is all about equity. There is, of course, more than one definition of what that means. Just before ending his term as the U.S. Secretary of Education, John B. King wrote: “We also must have the courage to hold ourselves accountable for students' success. Without accountability, standards are meaningless and equity is a charade.” 

Perhaps accountability is no longer a guiding principle. Maybe accountants, not educators, now set policy.  

Any school closure causes pain. It is infuriating when done for the wrong reason.