|
FROM Introduction to #278
and #279 – October newsletter
In
2024 we have a new understanding of the impact
of the four-day school week on our students. (Three recent reports find
the four-day week has a negative impact on student outcomes.) The
legislature and the Colorado Department of Education must take note. In light
of what we have learned, we need to update and perhaps significantly change
policies that have allowed this unusual school calendar to grow unchecked for
decades. |
The Keystone
Policy Center’s report, “Doing Less with Less: How a four-day school week affects
student learning and the teacher workforce,”[i]
made several recommendations to the Colorado Department of Education. One
addressed the way the state approves of districts seeking to convert to the
shorter school week and shorter school year. I propose we build on that idea
and connect CDE’s approval process to state accountability.
The Keystone report and recent national research makes us more aware of
the potential harm to student achievement due to the shorter school
week/shorter school year. (AV #278 focused on the SCHOOL YEAR – as few as 141
days of school – in Colorado districts operating on a four-day week.) Given
what we now realize, we should leverage our state’s school accountability
system and apply it to the state’s approval of districts seeking to remain on
a four-day school week.
The Education Accountability Act passed in 2009. As implemented by CDE
and the State Board, the Act has had profound consequences for education in our
state. As it has done for years, CDE continues to commit many resources to
support district and school accountability (see https://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/accountability-resources).
|
Can CDE remain neutral on this issue? See
Addendum A |
To date, however, I see no connection between the state’s work on
accountability and how it reviews requests from any low-performing district (i.e.,
on Performance Watch) seeking to remain on the shorter week/year.
This needs to change.
Building on a recommendation from the
Keystone report – more rigor
Initial Application
The Keystone report stated:
CDE should create a rigorous process for state
approval of four-day school weeks, with the core question being whether this
change will improve student outcomes. The process should not, as is currently the case, be a rubber
stamp without a review of the impacts on student learning.
A sensible first step. Addendum B
shows that the initial application does indeed look like a “rubber stamp”
process. There I show that the Office of Field Services at CDE does not recall
ever denying a district application for the shorter week and school year. Given
all we have learned recently about the impact the four-day week on student
achievement, it makes sense to create a “rigorous process” before a district is
allowed to take this step.
Ongoing Annual Applications
But what about the roughly 120 districts
that have already received the state’s approval to operate on a shorter
school year? CDE expects them “to submit a request for approval on an annual basis.”
|
Annual Request for Approval School districts operating on a reduced academic calendar (less than 160 scheduled days per school year) are required to submit a request for approval on an annual basis …. https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeedserv/reducedacademiccalendar_approval |
Nothing
in this process calls on a district to evaluate whether the shorter week/year is
proving helpful or harmful to student achievement and growth.
The Keystone report asks us to consider if
there might be a correlation, or even a cause and effect, between the district’s
calendar and unsatisfactory achievement and/or growth scores. I believe the state needs to require districts
on Performance Watch to confront this possibility.
The Department of Education lacks the
resources to impose “a rigorous process” for all 120 districts with their
annual applications. So I propose CDE focus such a process on a limited number
of districts, those -
a) operating on a four-day week AND
b) on the accountability system’s Performance Watch for more than
one year.
Annual Request from districts on Performance Watch
CDE already has “a process” for any district
accredited with a Priority Improvement or Turnaround Plan wishing
to remain on a four-day school week, but it is all pro forma. These districts merely
need to “submit additional documentation to the Field Services office.”
At the
Colorado Department or Education, under “Annual Request for Approval,” we see
this:
|
Process for Districts that are on Performance Watch (Priority
Improvement, Turnaround or On Watch, years 0+) “In addition to submitting the
reduced academic calendar application through Data Pipeline, districts on
Performance Watch that are submitting a district-wide application for
all schools within the district to be on a reduced academic
calendar need to submit the following additional information: ·
A copy of their respective school
calendars ·
Any applicable schedules, including
building class schedules, assembly schedules and/or bell schedule including
lunch time interval ·
A copy of their professional
development calendar if not included in the overall school calendar “CDE will review the additional materials for the use and
prioritization of instructional time. The executive director of Field
Services and the Associate Commissioner of School Quality and Support must
recommend approval of the application before it is forwarded to the
commissioner for consideration.” District Wide
Performance Watch – Reduced Academic Calendar Form https://www.cde.state.co.us/reducedacademiccalendar-approvalrequestform |
Unfortunately, this too appears to be
a “rubber stamp” process. More details in Addendum C.
For more rigor in the “Annual Request for Approval,” tie it to accountability
I believe it is
consistent with the state’s accountability process for CDE to make sure that
districts on the four-day week and on Performance Watch re-examine
their annual calendar. The steps taken would not assume that the four-day
school week is a principal cause of the achievement and/or growth scores that
place these districts on Performance Watch. But they would ensure that
the question is asked and studied. It would create a new level of rigor in the
“Annual Request for Approval” process. The state would only grant a district permission
to continue on the shorter week/shorter school year provided it makes a strong
rationale for doing do. No more rubber stamp approvals.
Where to begin – 7 districts on a
four-day week and on Performance Watch
2022: Of 11
districts in Colorado on Performance Watch, 7 operated on a
four-day school week.
2023: Of 19 districts
on Performance Watch, 16 were on a four-day week.
2024: Of 11 districts on Performance
Watch, 8 were on a four-day week. (Based on the Preliminary District
Frameworks released in September.)
Of the 8 four-day
districts on Performance Watch in the fall of 2024, let’s
consider the 7 rated on Priority Improvement or Turnaround for at
least two straight years.
Each district has a
different context and history; the socio-economic makeup of their student
populations will differ; the factors behind their being on Performance Watch
will differ. Fort Morgan has seven K-12 schools and over 3,400 students; Centennial
has one school building serving all 180 K-12 students.
Nevertheless, all
seven districts share one trait: a shorter week and a shorter school year. And
so it would make sense for CDE’s renewal process to include a focus on this one
common factor.
7
districts on Priority Improvement or Turnaround for two years or
more[iii]
*Most often a rating of 34.0 - 43.9% leads to a district being Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan.
**Decreased due to Low
Participation.
The academic achievement in all seven
districts warrants a careful review before they receive permission to continue
with their shorter school week and shorter school year. Addendum D provides
a snapshot of recent results: 2024 CMAS and SAT scores.
To return to the theme of AV #278, district calendars indicate that
6 of the 7 provide fewer than 150 student-contact days.
|
|
Student contact days - from district calendars* |
|
District / #
of students (2023-24) |
|
|
Fort Morgan (3,427) |
151 |
|
Center 26 JT (606) |
147 |
|
East Otero R-1 (1,326) |
7-12: 143
K-6: 141 |
|
Hanover 28 (271) |
146 |
|
Centennial RE-1 (187) |
147 |
|
Deer Trail 26 J (361) |
144 |
|
Las Animas RE-1 (956) |
143 |
|
Average # of student contact days |
145.7 |
*Most
data from 2024-25 calendars at district websites; from Center and Hanover via
phone call.
Addendum A
Can the
Colorado Department of Education remain neutral on the four-day school week?
My proposal
asks the Colorado Department of Education to acknowledge what “Doing Less with
Less” and other recent studies tell us: that we have good reason to be cautious
about enabling ever more Colorado districts to choose to reduce the school week
and the school year.
I use “enable” on purpose. As AV #278
showed, CDE’s policy has allowed the number of districts operating on a four-day
week to double over 20 years, from 40 in 1994 to 80 in 2014. The pace has quickened
since then: over the past decade, another 40 districts converted to the shorter
week/year. Granted, not an addiction, but unchecked. No guardrails.
A state
department committed to stronger student achievement and growth cannot be
neutral when districts choose a calendar that might do damage to both.
CDE - “doesn’t take a position” and “neutrality”
That was then: From The Colorado
Sun, August 2019. Is this still the case?
The Colorado Department of Education doesn’t take a
position on whether schools should attend school for five days or four. Students just have to hit a certain
number of classroom hours in the year, ranging from 900 hours for full-day
kindergarten to 1,080 hours for secondary students. “If they want a school
calendar of less than 160 days, however they want to fit that in is OK,” said
Jeremy Meyer, a spokesman for the department.
“What suffers?” Lawmakers aren’t sure.
The neutrality of the state Department of Education, coupled with a
constitution that limits the state’s ability to dictate school policy at the
local level, has created an unusual dynamic at the General Assembly.
On the one hand, many agree that the overall trend is bad. On the other, it’s not clear that it’s a problem in every case — and to the extent that it is, the legislature is limited by the state constitution in how it can respond. School districts are granted local control over most of their operations, including the school calendar.[iv] (Emphasis mine)
And now?
Five
years later, given what we now know, this must change. My proposal does not
insist that CDE “take a position.” But what we know today means it is
unconscionable to act as we have done for 30 years. We have no guidelines to
check the growth of Colorado districts and schools operating on a shorter
week and a shorter year. We have proceeded as if the reduced calendar
would do no harm to student outcomes. Who can say that now? We must set a new course.
Addendum B
CDE - Annual Request
for Approval
Question: Should
there be more expected of districts making their annual request to have their
reduced calendar approved by the Colorado Department to Education?
I have asked if any of these annual
applications have been denied by CDE.
From CDE: Status of Reduced Academic
Calendar Approvals in Colorado https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeedserv/reducedacademiccalendar
Annual Request for Approval –
Submitting a Request for Approval
“School districts operating on a reduced academic calendar (less than 160 scheduled days per school year) are required to submit a request for approval on an annual basis. The requests are submitted by the school district via the Directory in Data Pipeline in May of each year, to be approved for implementation for the following school year. Districts requesting approval are not obligated to follow their proposed calendar if their local planning is not finalized.” https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeedserv/reducedacademiccalendar_approval
**
2009 – “Some wouldn’t trade a 4-day
week,” The Denver Post, by Michael Booth (April 5, 2009).
Booth spoke with Ken Turner, deputy commissioner of CDE.
“His office nominally approves and rarely
denies four-day applications, so long as minimum instruction hours are filled.”
2020
– email exchange –
From me: “I wonder if there is
information you can share on the number of districts that have applied
that are not given permission to go this route … just the number each of the past four or five
years.”
Email from
Jhon Penn, Executive Director, Office of Field Services –
“In response to your question, all of the districts that
applied for permission to operate on a calendar of less than 160 days (commonly
called a four day school week) were granted permission.”
|
2024 – email from Christina Monaco, Executive Director, Field Services and Supports – “I am not aware of any districts being denied a reduced calendar application. You referenced an email from Jhon Penn from 2020 and I have been a part the process since 2020, and we have not denied any subsequent requests over the past 4 years.” |
Addendum C
Q
& A with CDE
Email - Aug. 15, 2024 - from Christina Monaco, Executive Director,
Field Services and Supports –
For any district that applies for a
reduced calendar application AND is on performance watch (Priority
Improvement or Turnaround rating on their DPF), we collect the
additional documents via the form link you included in your email (annually, not initially).
- Field Services (in collaboration with other offices) examines all documents that are submitted from the PI/T applications and counts the instructional days and then calculates instructional time for all school levels to verify that the schedules submitted meet the minimum instructional time requirements.
-
Once we have reviewed and
verified their documents, we send the entire list and accompanying
resources/docs to the commissioner for final review and approval. Once approved
by the commissioner, I send approval letters to district superintendents,
usually in mid-June for the following school year.
Email – Feb. 28, 2020 –
from Jhon Penn, Executive Director, Office of Field Services
Here is a listing of those districts that were either
Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan or Accredited with Turnaround Plan
that were approved:
·
For 2019-2020 – Aguilar, Deer Trail (based upon 2018
District Performance Framework)
·
For 2018-2019 - Aguilar, Karval, East Otero, South
Conejos (based upon 2017 District Performance Framework)
·
For 2017-2018 – Aguilar, Huerfano (based upon 2016
District Performance Framework)
·
For 2016-2017 – There were no 2015 district performance
frameworks produced due to state assessment transition therefore the 2014
district performance framework designation was carried forward for approval
consideration. Aguilar (based upon 2014 District Performance Framework).
· For 2015-2016 – Aguilar (based upon 2014 District Performance Framework)
Addendum D – 7 districts on Performance
Watch - CMAS and SAT scores – 2024
% Met/Exceeded Expectations
*Given the # of students p/grade in these two small districts, here is the overall average for grades 3-8. https://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/cmas-dataandresults-2024
No score means N < 16
|
|
SAT Reading/Writing |
Met/Exceeded Expectations |
SAT Math |
Met/Exceeded Expectations |
|
|
Mean Scale Score |
Mean Scale Score |
||
|
STATE |
500 |
57.6% |
477 |
31.1% |
|
Hanover |
444 |
30.0%. |
424 |
- |
|
Deer Trail |
443 |
30.4% |
407 |
- |
|
East Otero |
441 |
30.1% |
411 |
9.6% |
|
Las Animas |
428 |
37.3% |
403 |
5.9% |
|
Fort Morgan |
419 |
28.6% |
401 |
8.2% |
|
Center 27J |
408 |
23.3% |
393 |
- |
|
Centennial |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
65-92 pts. below state average |
|
50-84 pts. below state average |
|
https://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/sat-psat-data
No score means N < 16
We all know that CMAS
and SAT scores tell us only so much about the teaching and learning taking
place in these seven districts. But I trust we agree such data tells us something
meaningful. The test results are a major reason why these districts are all on Performance
Watch.
Moreover, these scores invite the question
(and the theme of AV #278): if this is how students perform when we only offer
them 146 days of school, isn’t it our responsibility to provide them (and all
Colorado students) many more days of school? Why not at least 160 days
of school?
[i] “Colorado made kindergarten a
priority. But when it comes to four-day school weeks, lawmakers don’t see a
problem,” The Colorado Sun, by Brian Eason, Aug. 29, 2019,
https://coloradosun.com/2019/08/29/four-day-schools-politics.
[ii] One
of these might include maintaining the four-day week, but extending the school
year well into June, as we see in the Lake County School District. Several
years ago it chose to go to the four-day school week structure, but created a calendar
that ensured students had over 160 days of school. Their 2024-25 school year is
162 days, from August 12 to June 19 (https://www.lakecountyschools.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-2025-LCSD-Calendar-Final-Updated-7.9.24.pdf). Kate
Bartlett, Lake County’s superintendent, told me that seven months of community
engagement led to this plan.
[iii] CDE - District and School Performance Framework Results.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworkresults
[iv] “Doing Less with Less: How a four-day
school week affects student learning and the teacher workforce,” Keystone
Policy Center, by Gottlieb, Lagana, and Schoales. Aug. 2024, https://www.keystone.org/doing-less-with-less-how-a-four-day-school-week-affects-student-learning-and-the-teacher-workforce/
