Hopes, fears and frustrations about schools and state finances were at the boiling point Friday during a legislative hearing.Read more »
Hoping the third time’s a charm, Colorado officials are getting ready to submit their latest application for federal Race to the Top funds.Read more »
The Colorado Department of Education has filed its formal request for waiver from parts of the No Child Left Behind law.Read more »
It was nice to see former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, one of the bright lights in the George W. Bush administration, penning a cheerleading op-ed in the Denver Post for Colorado education reforms.
I’m not sure exactly what the political push was behind writing this now (I assume it was associated with her talk and visit to the Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce last week), but it is always good to see national analysts paying attention to Colorado reforms.
I was, however, a bit surprised by the entirely fact- and trend-free nature of the commentary.
If Colorado is doing a great job with reforms, shouldn’t there be some strong evidence of student achievement, to back that up? Especially from a key developer and implementer of No Child Left Behind, for which measurement was critical?Read more »
Last week, a series of forums kicked off, dedicated to finding ways to improve Denver Public Schools while elevating the dialogue around Denver’s school board elections.
The event, called More From Our Schools, isn’t a candidate forum or a debate; it’s a gathering of people with multiple viewpoints who want the best for Denver’s school kids. Unfortunately, this kind of get-together doesn’t happen much in Denver. Donnell-Kay’s Associate Director Kim Knous-Dolan described why in her EdNews commentary in late August. Others echoed her point at last week’s forum: It’s time to abandon rhetoric and bridge differences.
Mayor Michael Hancock encouraged this attitude too during his introductory remarks. He said there is no greater moral imperative than putting kids first and then asking how to ensure all kids access to high quality schools. Hancock rightly remarked that the forums and the mayor’s Denver Compact are opportunities for the education community “to do something absolutely transformative. Something where we’re not advocating but we’re actually just going to work to make a difference.”
So how can we step away from politics, stop fighting and move forward with reform? The forum’s moderator, AEI’s director of education policy Rick Hess offered his take. Though the education community might disagree on how to improve schools for all kids, he said:
“That doesn’t mean that one or another of us doesn’t care about kids or is only interested in some personal agenda. It just means the world is a complicated place. You have to have the ability to understand their challenges, their concerns and then try to identify opportunities to work things out.”
Hess encouraged devRead more »
A mom is conflicted when she receives an official letter informing her that her daughter’s elementary school is not making “adequate yearly progress.” It offers her free transportation to send her child to another, higher-performing school. Experts offer her advice to help her make a decision.Read more »
It got our attention: Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan “Announces $3.5 Billion in Title I School Improvement Grants to Fund Transformational Changes Where Children Have Long Been Undeserved” (August, 2009). When we learned a year ago that over $37 million of that would come to 16 of Colorado’s lowest-achieving schools, over three years, to help raise student achievement, we again took note. Another year has now passed. How’s that going? Any positive news for those “underserved” kids?
One assumes the federal government is interested in seeing that the grants to Colorado, especially to Denver Public Schools and Pueblo City Schools, the two districts receiving most of these funds, ($14.8 and $12.9 million respectively over three years to turnaround six schools in each city) will be well used.
One assumes the Colorado Department of Education is taking a careful look at how well year one funds, totaling over $10 million to our 16 struggling schools, have been used.
One assumes DPS (about $4.6 million this first year) and Pueblo 60 (over $4.2 million), especially, are taking a close look at how these funds have been spent and how well improvement efforts are going.
One assumes they are looking at a variety of measurements to gauge effectiveness and success. For we all agree that in the complex effort to turn around or transform a low-performing school into a good place for students to learn and grow, there are many factors and variables to consider.
However, one also assumes that CSAP data, while just one of the many measurements, is considered an important piece of the puzzle. So here are the 2011 CSAP achievement results—the percentage proficient and advanced—compared to the previous two years, and compared to the goals set by the schools (and/or districts) when they applied for the turnaround or transformation funds (these goals are found here).
Most folks will want to see growth scores too, and I am sure the state and districts will examine those. But as I have written previously, let’s be careful not to exaggerate those 55 percent growth scores as great news. The goal—yes?—is still proficiency.Read more »
Several high-profile education reforms passed by the Colorado legislature in the last few years rely on massive collections of data to work as planned. For example, the 2009 accountability bill requires administrators at struggling schools to use school-level data to drive the improvement planning process.
Senate Bill 191’s teacher evaluation provisions require more, however. Administrators must be able to drill down to the individual level, accurately linking teachers with students to evaluate teachers based on how well their students progress over the year. And Senate Bill 10-036 tills the soil for teacher prep programs to monitor the achievement of their graduates’ students in order to improve teacher prep programs.
All are ambitious laws — and I sometimes fear that Colorado’s reform cart has raced ahead of the data horse. The Colorado Department of Education, school districts and the Department of Higher Education are still working out the details on the kinds of data needed. That’s not a criticism. Collecting data that links every student, teacher, school and public university in the state is incredibly slow and painstaking when done right – and you definitely want it done right. I just worry that the public enthusiasm for the reforms will fade before they even get a chance.
That would be a shame because Colorado is headed toward building one of the most sophisticated data systems in the country, one that can be used to help improve our schools in many ways. Administrators and teachers can use data to identify their schools’ weaknesses and work together to set targets and monitor improvement. Principals can provide useful feedback to individual teachers, helping the weakest improve or find a new profession. Researchers can measure which programs and reforms are most successful over time and examine why.Read more »
Interesting thoughts from Dropout Nation’s RiShawn Biddle on how some standardized testing critics are using the Atlanta scandal to overstate their case. Here’s a highlight:
Plenty has already been said about the cheating scandal at the Atlanta school district. And, as one would expect, education traditionalists such as American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and Diane Ravitch proclaimed that the mess proved that standardized testing leads to perverse incentives that force teachers to behave unethically, provide low-quality instruction, and ultimately, poorly serve the children in their care…Read more »
Cross-posted from the ‘Failing Schools’ blog
status quo: “the state in which”; the existing state of affairs
The education reform discussion (or debate, depending on who’s talking) is filled with buzzwords and terms, most of which (like “accountability” and “reform”) are meant to sound positive, so that we choose to agree with the speaker. (“Well, I believe in holding people accountable for their actions, so yes, I’m for an accountability movement.”) We know that many of these fall apart under closer scrutiny, but at least there’s an attempt to win skeptics over by appealing to commonly shared values.
But some terms are designed to shame us into compliance with the speaker. “Status quo” is the perfect example of this.
People who regularly engage with school reform issues are well aware of the way powerful people have defined the discussion. If you agree with them, you’re a reformer, and if you disagree with them, you support the status quo, which is meant to suggest low achievement. So far, I’ve yet to find anyone who’s giddy about the idea of school failure or achievement gaps.Read more »