From the editor
In this, the silly season of CSAP, I come both to praise and bury the Colorado Department of Education.
First, the praise. Yesterday, CDE released 2008 Colorado Student Assessment (CSAP) scores. It was a grand media event, featuring banks of TV cameras (including that one that toppled to the marble floor with a huge clattering crash, startling CDE Assistant Commissioner Jo O’Brien momentarily off her talking points), scribbling scribes, and political luminaries basking in the glow of klieg lights. Read all about it on the Education News Colorado website.
The only thing missing was much in the way of news. The tired old CSAP release routine has been running on fumes for a while now, and to its credit, CDE seems to have come to that collective realization. Static “status” data comparing this year’s fourth grade to last year’s won’t cut it in this era of heightened accountability and more sophisticated data analysis.
So, next month, the department is towing the old jalopy to the junk heap and rolling out a shiny new vehicle called the Colorado Growth Edsel…er, Model.
In all seriousness, the growth model marks a sea change in how the people of Colorado will come to understand the performance of their schools and children. We will be able to track how much growth a student attains over the course of several years; or, on a less granular level, how much growth a school wrings out of its student body.
This is useful on several levels. Most important, it allows educators to pinpoint how much a student needs to improve on the CSAP to attain the Holy Grail of proficiency, or, even better, to reach the promised land of advanced status.
The Colorado Growth Model also promises to get under the hood of achievement gaps, be they race, gender or socio-economic in origin. Good data can, and should, lead to better and more effective work. With the growth model’s advent, the “we lack data” excuse will be gone forever.
Now for the burying part. Last week, when the rest of the media was getting CSAP data a week ahead of its scheduled release, the powers-that-be at CDE made the inexplicable and inexcusable decision to withhold that data from Education News Colorado. It seems that we failed to pass some ill-defined litmus test that would designate us a bona fide media outlet.
As Commissioner Dwight Jones and others explained to me and several advocates who rallied to our cause, CDE hasn’t yet established rules governing how to deal with requests from outlets other than the usual newspapers, TV stations and radio stations. So, even though we were the only “non-traditional” outlet to request the data, the lumbering bureaucracy of CDE couldn’t respond nimbly enough to honor our request.
I take umbrage at this decision on many levels. One point that particularly rankles is that TV news somehow ranks as a legitimate media outlet. Yes, even local TV stations on rare occasions practice real journalism. But the day to day, run of the mill TV news is shallow fluff that titillates more than it informs. Does anyone at CDE really believe that CSAP coverage on TV will somehow be more edifying than what we would provide?
Further, to lump all “non-traditional” media together is ludicrous. Education News Colorado is run and staffed by professional journalists who happen to have seen the light, and recognize that the future of journalism, for better or worse, is online. It’s insulting to be somehow grouped with the underwear-clad blogger typing away in Mom and Dad’s basement.
So let’s hope CDE gets a clue and gives us the same head start other outlets receive when the growth model data is released next month.
There. Now I feel better.
The article that follows, by Colorado League of Charter Schools Executive Director Jim Griffin, highlights an issue that could easily get lost in the blizzard of election news that will bury us in coming months. But in the world of Colorado education, facilities funding for charter schools is a big deal. As Jim points out, upcoming bond elections will put school districts to the test. Will action match rhetoric when it comes to supporting charters? Education News Colorado will follow this issue closely during the run-up to Election Day.
--Alan Gottlieb
Which school district bond elections will include charters?
By Jim Griffin
Since the Charter Schools Act passed in 1993, facility challenges have been the most vexing problem faced by the state’s 140-plus charter schools. On average, charters spend $480 per pupil of their operating dollars on facilities needs (rent, improvements, debt service), and yet typically occupy facilities much smaller and with fewer amenities than traditional public schools.
Policy solutions have been challenging to come by and politically charged.
The 2008 election season will provide the latest test of how legislatively crafted policy solutions are working to help charters meet their facilities needs.
Some brief history: In 2001, as legislators debated providing direct financial assistance to the state’s charter schools, various representatives of the public school establishment argued that such aid was inappropriate. They argued that local school districts receive capital funding through bond elections, and charter schools should have to do the same.
Thus in 2002, the Facilities Financing Act became law, providing a process whereby: 1) local school districts were required to notify their charter schools that they are considering going to the voters for a bond election; and 2) provide charters with an opportunity to submit their facility needs to the district for possible inclusion in the bond issue.
Under the law school districts ultimately have the right to say no to any charter school request for inclusion on the ballot.
This fall, a significant number of metro area school districts are seeking voter approval for bond elections , providing a timely opportunity to review how the Charter School Facilities Financing Act of 2002 is playing out.
In recent years the law’s outcome has been mixed. Since 2003, 28 bond elections have passed in school districts with charter schools. Charter schools were specifically included in only four of those elections (Denver '03, Jeffco '04, Colorado Springs '05, Boulder '06), and a number of charter schools received significant facilities support. In many other districts, successful bond elections have provided no support to charters.
This year’s landscape appears likely to continue that trend – a few districts plan on including charter schools in their bond elections, others do not.
From the beginning of its bond process Jefferson County Schools expressed its intent to include charters in its bond election (as it did in 2004) The district’s 13 charter schools are eager be a part of the bond question and look forward to working with the district on a plan to maximize support for their schools’ facility needs.
In conjunction with its upcoming bond election, Cherry Creek School District also stepped up and offered its sole charter school nearly $3 million for the school’s capital needs.
Denver Public Schools denied specific proposals from individual charter schools and from a group of schools that proposed setting aside a portion of bond funding to support all the district’s charter schools.
DPS has, however, proposed adding $5 million of bond proceeds to a fund supporting the district’s New School Initiative and allowing existing charter schools access to the fund (though seemingly only for renovations to existing district space -- something of great interest to a few of the district’s 21 charters, but probably no help to the rest).
Another handful of districts appear (to date) inclined to offer virtually no support for their charter schools through upcoming bond elections.
Based on current plans, Adams 12, Aurora, and Douglas County Schools will be seeking a combined $690 million in bond funds for their capital needs. To date, of that total, Aurora is offering $750,000 to be shared among its 6 charter schools. The 17 charter schools serving over 6,000 students in those three districts had hoped for more substantive participation in their respective bond elections but thus far have met with little success.
We applaud the districts planning to include charter schools in their bond elections and appreciate their foresight and leadership. Given the number of districts with no such plans, however, it’s clear that the 2002 legislation designed to increase charter school access to local district bond elections falls short of providing a reliable, systemic solution for charter school facility needs.
Jim Griffin is executive director of the Colorado League of Charter Schools
EdNews highlights
Ad money stockpiled for initiatives
Written by Todd Engdahl
Be prepared this fall for ad blitzes opposing the Colorado Promise Scholarships and touting the measure that would allow loosening of gambling laws and funnel new revenue to community colleges.
Campaign finance reports filed with the secretary of state by a Monday deadline showed heavy ad buys by Coloradans for a Stable Economy, the energy-industry funded group that opposes Initiative No. 113, the proposal to fund scholarships through an increase in the mineral severance tax.
Reports also showed big ad buys by Coloradans for Community Colleges, the casino-funded group supporting Initiative No. 121.
New, improved era in school data arrives
Written by Alan Gottlieb
Beginning today (July 21), Coloradans can get a sneak preview of the future of education data reporting, using student academic growth rather than the more static, absolute measures in use up until now.
Data from the new Colorado Growth Model is available on the Colorado Department of Education web site. Click here for data on every school in the state , showing student achievement and student growth in math, writing and reading between 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Colorado Student Assessment Program data for the 2007-08 school year will be released July 29, in the traditional, static format. That data will be incorporated into the growth model and new growth model charts will be available to the public and media August 19.
Blog highlights
Public health vs public education
Monday, July 28, 2008
Written by: David Ethan Greenblog
Last week I was fortunate to attend the annual Dorsey Hughes Symposium on public health, which may be the most high powered conference held in Colorado that lay people and the media have never heard of. Speakers included Denis Cortese, the CEO of the Mayo Clinic; Dr, Kenneth Cooper (the patron saint of the Aerobics movement); T.R. Reid (his documentary "Sick Around the World" debuted on PBS last month); national pollsters Celinda Lake (Dems) and Elizabeth Harrington (GOP); three doctors who made the "short list" to become US Surgeon General, etc.
One big take away is that the next public health crisis coming down the road is Type 2 diabetes, which is tied directly to obesity. And the dramatic rise in adult onset diabetes is tied directly to the fact that we are raising a generation of fatties. This, in turn, makes education a target for the public health community, both in terms of educating kids on the virtues of exercise and proper diet, and the schools in terms of providing kids with the opportunities to eat well and get fit. Therein lies the rub, because the public health folks have trouble understanding why it is so difficult for schools to provide PE and good food, just as anyone in education wonders why it is so damn hard to get an accurate bill from their insurer. Elaine Berman from the State Board and John Lange, Superintendent of Adams 12, tried to explain some of the challenges, but we’ve got a "Two Cultures" problem here with respect to using the schools to solve a public health issue.
The other big take away is that the public health community is way more sophisticated than public education in terms of thinking and problem solving systemically. No one at Dorsey Hughes would be dumb enough to stand up in the room and argue that we shouldn’t be collecting data on outcomes because it "can’t be quantified" or that the results would hurt the feelings of some interest group. The problems are at least as complex and chaotic as those faced in public education, but the level of discourse is much higher. I’ve attended a lot of education symposiums in Colorado and across the country, and they felt like middle school compared to grad school in terms of how the public health community thinks about how systems work and how one deconstructs and analyzes a problem.
Not sure why this is, although when I posed the question someone patronizingly pointed out that there’s bigger money at stake in our health system, and "money attracts smarter people." Sigh.
The Symposium is run by the Colorado Health Foundation and next year will relocate to Keystone and be renamed the Colorado Health Symposium. Definitely worth checking out.
Spin room: early post-CSAP thoughts
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Written by: Pol Econ Ed
Back in May, I asked blog readers to give their over/under guestimates for the 2008 CSAP results. Save for Alex Ooms, no one took up that challenge. I continue to be amazed that we talk/gripe a lot about CSAPs, but when they actually come out, we provide no context to what the results might really mean, only some post hoc “spin.”
In that spirit, then, I’ll offer some of my own spin.
It is particularly hard to assess test score results, at least statewide, when they look like this year’s – a mildly positive trend, or flat. The half full perspective is “oh, we are continuing to improve, slower than we would want, but at least improving.” The half empty take is “wow, all this reform effort and almost nothing to show for it, and at this rate, it will take until 2050 for all of Colorado’s students to be proficient.”
More and more, I don’t think the year over year CSAP results tell us much of anything. The growth model results in August will be more helpful, but a longer trend is more instructive, too, as in this chart from the Rocky, for 2004-8.
Here, out of 27 tests (math, reading, writing in grades 3-10 and science in few grades), aggregate state scores are up for 19, down for 6 and even for 2, over the 5 year period from 2004-8. Overall, that is positive, showing improvement. However, none of the grade level tests in any subject show more than a 6 percentage point increase in the percentage proficient over five years.
Thus, with a median across grade levels of about 65% proficient in reading, 55% in math, 50% in math, the state would need anywhere from 30-45 more years of the very best improvements that have ever been made in any single CSAP test in any grade level to get everyone to proficiency. Not gonna make that 2014 NCLB target of 100% proficiency.
Actually, the most striking thing about the Rocky chart is how much math proficiency levels decline with grade level. While Colorado 3rd graders are in the 70% proficient range, by 10th grade only about 30% demonstrate proficiency. While problems with 10th grade math CSAPs often have been noted, and this decline does partially mirror national trends, it is really disturbing and incredibly problematic for STEM pipeline hopes.
Of course, while we would all like it to not be the case, in the aggregate, test scores and family SES are highly correlated. Breaking that correlation, in a setting beyond a single exceptional school or two, is really hard and really rare. And, aggregate results are difficult to move. In fact, the CSAP results over the past five years are probably a bit better than they appear, since Colorado’s percentage of free/reduced lunch students, a reasonable measure of students in poverty, has grown from 31% to 35% over that period, suggesting that Colorado has been teaching and testing more at risk kids each year.
On the less aggregated level, it appears that DPS did much better this year, making really strong gains in middle school tests and smaller but solid gains in nearly all grade levels. One can hope that the determined and focused reform efforts of Michael Bennet and company are beginning to pay off, or perhaps, could it be ProComp incentives . . .?
One Response to “Spin room: early post-CSAP thoughts”
1. Van Schoales Says:
It’s possible that ProComp played a role but much more likely CSAP improved because of changes with the district instructional program and increased standardization.
I have to admit that I am puzzled as to why middle school reading would make such a strong showing when it is one of the more difficult grades and subjects to improve. Most districts see gains in the elementary grades when they first start improving. It is more difficult to move scores at the higher grades.
I’m sure that double blocking of literacy, pacing guides, benchmark tests and greater standardization and increased professional development have had an impact but why more in 8th grade than say 4th or 5th grade, it’s odd. One factor could be it’s easier to move the needle when you’re at the bottom. DPS middle schools are the least effective part of the system. I’m very interested in seeing the 2008 growth scores. They should help shed a bit more light.
Other thoughts?
Are differentiated classrooms the future?
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Written by: Rachel Pickett
This coming August Mapleton is adopting the reading program “Every Child A Reader” put out by the National Literacy Coalition (who has also designed a writing program called “Every Child A Writer,” but we’re not implementing that one this year). Since I’m a humanities teacher, I took the required training last week.
I’m not the friendliest person to cookie-cutter educational programs making their way into our classrooms, but I must say… I like this one so far and am curious to see how students will engage with it.
The program model creates a differentiated classroom. Students are grouped by their reading level (a grouping that is not set in stone – groups can change throughout the year), and spend most of their time in class working at (rotating) stations. I’ll be at one station, working with one group of students at a time.
It’s a program based in structure, not in content: instead of telling me (and students) what articles or stories we need to study in our classroom, I’m learning how to group students according to their reading abilities, and I’m learning text comprehension strategies to use with students in small groups. Since it’s not a content-based program, I choose texts and create the stations. Thornton Middle School implemented this program last year, and my comrades there tell me it’s quite the success.
In my training as a Boettcher teacher, we talk a lot about differentiating instruction. Last year was my fellowship year, and the 15 of us fellows spent hours and hours (and papers and papers!) discussing what it means to build relationships with our kids. The program challenges us to deeply know each student as a learner, and a person. I think relationships are emphasized so strongly in Boettcher because the better I know my kids, the better I can help them learn. I’m more astute at differentiating for them.
Are differentiated classrooms the classrooms of the future? Students can meet standards and benchmarks in many different ways… maybe offering them multiple ways to learn just makes sense. Kids are different. As I know that Xavier is interested in the election, and that he likes learning independently, I can create opportunities for him. To meet the 8th grade civics standard of understanding the importance of citizenship maybe he would keep an ‘election’ scrapbook of articles from newspapers and magazines that he has responded to. Sheila, on the other hand, might help organize a school-wide mock election on Super Tuesday. She’s meeting the same standard, yet doing it in ways that engage with her interests.
Differentiated classrooms may need to be the wave of the (urban?) future. We have classrooms with students coming from the U.S., Asia, Africa, and South America (and from all the different countries in these regions). Students’ literacy levels range from advanced to unsatisfactory. Culture and language differences abound. Our classrooms are overflowing in richness and diversity, yet how do we tap into it?
Our conversations about ProComp and school structure (K-8 schools, or 6-12 schools) need to include conversations about what goes on inside our very diverse classrooms. The effectiveness of our classrooms will influence the effectiveness of our structures (and v.v.) Do you think differentiated learning will help all of our kids meet standards, and become vibrant members of society? Will effectively differentiated classrooms help ensure that ProComp and our larger school structures are effective?
Our discussions on education need to be wide open because the future is wide open in our rapidly changing world. What are your thoughts and ideas about differentiated classrooms, and differentiated literacy programs that districts like Mapleton are beginning to adopt?
4 Responses to “Are differentiated classrooms the future?”
1. Kevin Welner Says:
Hello Rachel.
Differentiating instruction is not easy, as you well know. But it’s necessary to make sure that each student is academically challenged.
Research on within-classroom, flexible grouping of elementary-aged students does not show the same negative effects as we see with between-classroom grouping (tracking), as often seen secondary schools. My suggestion, however, would be to keep an eye out for how the grouping is affecting your students. In particular, are those in the lowest group more engaged? Is there, as a practical matter, real flexibility in the system? Who is moving up? Down? Why?
Reading your post about how you’re approaching the class, it seems you’re already thinking about these issues. Hopefully it is successful. You as the teacher will be in the best position to ensure that the program works as intended.
2. Rachel Says:
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your suggestion. I definitely do not want the classroom to turn into a tracked, inflexible place, and I want to keep a watchful eye out for that. I think every student is deeply intelligent, in multiple ways, and I want the classroom to be a safe place where everyone’s intelligence is engaged. I’m not sure how this atmosphere can emerge yet, though! It is a challenge to meet kids where they are at, without it meaning ‘lower’ or ‘higher,’ and to differentiate based on many factors (including interests and passions as well as lexile numbers!) Seeing students as ‘lower’ or ‘higher’ dampens the aliveness and complexity of all our learning.
As a teacher, I am also a student. My students have loads to teach me and each other. Maybe this attitude can help build a curious differentiated environment?
Rachel
3. Holly Yettick Says:
To Rachel and other teachers interested in teaching in diverse classrooms- One good resource is “Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom” by Elizabeth Cohen. It’s practitioner-oriented book that suggests specific instructional strategies. The strategies and philosophy aren’t everyone’s cup of tea but I think many teachers find them compelling.
-Holly Yettick
4. Kevin Welner Says:
I second Holly’s recommendation regarding Liz Cohen’s work, and I would add the work of Carol Tomlinson, who has a particular focus on high-achieving students and those classified as gifted. Teachers can find resources on her website: http://www.caroltomlinson.com/
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
