Editor’s note: Jill Conrad will complete her stint on the Denver school board November 30.
Sandra Bullock stars in a new movie called The Blind Side. Though I’ve yet to see it, I understand it to be a movie about the events and opportunities that turned a young homeless man’s life around to one of promise and success. It’s also a movie about football. The title alludes to what we often don’t (or won’t) see, at least not without effort or assistance, in our daily course of life, in our society, in addressing the complex public challenges of our time, and as a quarterback. As policy, education, and community leaders, it’s too bad we all don’t have an offensive tackle like “Big Mike” to protect us from our blind sides! I am quite sure that we all have them.
The metaphor seems especially poignant to me as I reflect on the proposed DPS school turnaround recommendations, especially those in NW Denver. As you can imagine, this has weighed heavily on my mind in recent weeks (and days). Since early October, I have reviewed data presented by the district, participated in several community meetings, met privately with community leaders, visited schools, reviewed supplemental data sent to the board, conducted my own background research, discussed the matter with my board colleagues, the Superintendent, Chief Academic Officer, education experts, and listened to nearly eight hours of public testimony. There’s been a lot of information to sort through as I weigh the merits of the Superintendent’s recommendation against the various arguments that have been made, some for, and many, against it. Indeed, that is my job as a board member—to listen carefully to all sides, ask good questions and seek good information, deliberate with my colleagues, and, ultimately, to cast my vote. This I will do on the night of November 30th, my last vote as a board member, but for now, I am still thinking it all through.
As I do so, I keep thinking of this concept of the “blind side.” Amidst the cacophony of data, information, points of view (some expressed with civility and respect and others much less so), what are the things that we are all not seeing from our various vantage points? Why is it that a group of all well-intentioned people who generally want the same thing for NW Denver students—better outcomes–can’t seem to get on the same page about the best way to accomplish that? Perhaps we are just talking behind each other’s “blind sides.”
Through this process, community leaders have brought many important issues to the forefront. They have helped the district see, more clearly, some of its own “blind sides.” Things like ensuring that the demand will match the new supply, making sure that the successful center-based and other special education programs are not compromised, future course offerings possible in a smaller IB program, logistical issues related to co-location, and more. All very important items to work through and much more careful thought and planning is necessary if the plan moves forward.
We’ve also heard a lot about the great vision and hope that future-middle-school parents (most with younger children enrolled at Edison and Brown) hold for the kind of options they would like to see in NW Denver. It is also very important to make sure that DPS works closely with these parents to develop the future middle school options they seek.
One thing I have not heard much of, at least from those who are most vocal on the issue, is what are the academic needs of the students likely to be most directly affected by the decision next year, and in the two-to-three years following? That is, what are the academic needs of the incoming 6th grade students who, if the plan is passed, will attend the Lake IB 6th grade academy in 2010 (100-150 or so students), West Denver Prep #3 at Lake (100 students) and West Denver Prep #4 at Emerson (100 students), as well as those currently attending Lake, who will be next year’s 7th and 8th graders. Are these incoming students achieving at grade-level? Are they proficient in reading and math? If they are, then the proposed 6th grade school programs should be focused on keeping them engaged and achieving even higher levels (what CDE calls “move up”). If these students are not yet proficient and are, in fact, behind (and in some cases, several grade levels behind), then we need 6th grade offerings that will be adept at swiftly catching them up so that they can enter high school on a more level playing field with their peers and be on track to graduate.
In middle school, you have only three years to accomplish this lest they become the statistic I am quite certain no one wants them to be. [i]
So, aside from the raw estimates of the number of students, who are these potential 2010, 2011, and 2012 6thgraders and what do we know about their academic needs? As I’ve looked at the data and the full feeder schools into the Lake and surrounding areas, they are students who will most likely come from the 5th 4th and 3rd grade classes at Cheltenham, Fairview, Cowell, Colfax, Eagleton, Brown, and Newlon. What are the current achievement levels of the students in those schools? Looking at the percentage of students who are proficient in reading in each school (2009 data), it’s 28% (Cheltenham), 28% (Fairview) 32% (Cowell), 34% (Colfax), 35% (Eagleton), 54% (Edison), and 55% (Newlon). In all of these schools, at least one-half to three-quarters of the incoming NW Denver 6th graders to are not proficient in reading (2009 CSAP Data, CDE Website, see spreadsheet below). In math, it’s about the same percentage. That represents a total of about 500 to 750 students.
It’s possible that the new Lake IB and one or both of the proposed West Denver Prep schools could also pull some students from other surrounding schools like Valdez (especially if the school becomes a K-5 as some are discussing), Barnum, Valverde, and Greenlee. So, how many of these potential students are proficient in reading? The numbers are about the same: 22% (Valdez), 31% (Barnum), 34% (Valverde), 36% (Greenlee), meaning that at least 64-78% of those students are behind and need a middle school that will catch them up.
As I began to look at these numbers, I became more and more curious about what the full picture of student data really tells us about what our students enrolled in these schools RIGHT NOW and those slated to fill up the proposed middle school options over the next three years will need in a middle school if they are to have a fighting chance to catch up by the 9th grade, graduate, and succeed in higher education. Using data available through CDE’s CO Growth Model, www.schoolview.org and DPS’ School Performance Framework, http://communications.dpsk12.org/initiatives/school-performance-framework/, I created the following spreadsheet showing each of the above-mentioned schools, their current enrollment, an estimated current 5th grade class and incoming 6th, demographic information, CO Growth Model data (which includes percentage of students at proficiency (i.e., how many students are proficient) or above as well as the school’s median growth percentile (how fast is the school catching them up), and their SPF results.
You can also click here to see this chart more clearly.
For each data set, schools are ranked according to their growth score (which is highlighted across the row) so we can see how fast each school is catching students up.
The 500-750 below-proficient students in these schools will be in desperate need of (and certainly deserve) the most effective teaching in the most focused and well-designed and well-run schools where every adult believes in and supports them in reaching the high expectations set for them–whatever it takes—if they are going to catch up to their peers before high school. These students need much more than a “good school.” They need a game-changer at this point in their academic life. With the proposed recommendations, DPS has an opportunity to provide them with one. If you were making the decision, what middle school program would you offer students who need to catch up by several grade levels over the next three years (see spreadsheet on middle schools, below)?
Imagine, then, how the lives of and future opportunities these students might change if we could offer middle school programs that both rapidly catch and keep students up, academically, over the next three years. Then, imagine how different North and West High Schools might be four years from now! Now, imagine the impact of that on the current graduate rate! Imagine these students actually going to and succeeding in college…and so on.
As I see it, this beautiful dream—one that dramatically changes outcomes for such students—hinges on the quality of the middle school education these students receive over the next three years and beyond. We, quite literally, have a very short period of time (three years) to make the kind of impact on these students that their future (and ours) deserves. This is the urgency with which I feel the weight of this decision. And, this is the foundation upon which I will be casting my vote on November 30th. That is my job and, indeed, it is my life’s work.
Looking again at the spreadsheet, you will see another row of numbers for each school, labeled # off-track (4th row from the top). This number represents the students who, if current DPS dropout statistics bear out (and I pray with every fiber of my being that they do not), are currently at risk of not graduating high school. The bottom line is that if we are not successful in catching all of these students up within three years, we literally risk producing up to 3,165 more dropouts in this part of the city alone!
As I’ve gone through this process, I have genuinely listened and tried to stay open to my own “blind sides.” To my board colleagues (old and new), teachers, community members, parents, students and anyone else paying attention to this critical moment in our shared history, all I ask is that you look a little more closely and a little more deeply at this possible “blind side” before concluding that the Superintendent’s proposed recommendation should be denied.
This is not about blaming teachers. Too many policy makers are way-too-quick to do that. I am not one of them. This is also not about favoring charter schools over traditional ones, any ideology or the currying of political flavor. And it certainly has nothing to do with any concern whatsoever with a political future, as some have recently suggested. No.
I deeply regret the missed opportunities to more successfully engage the community in this conversation, much much sooner than we have. Like so many, I pray that this approach to decision-making changes in DPS.
The challenges these students face are systemic—and so are the solutions. This one set of decisions is only a first-step to what needs to be a much longer, more engaged conversation about the long-term needs of all of those younger students in the Edison, Brown, and other elementary schools. Shame on all of us if we don’t take their concerns about Skinner’s future seriously. In this case, we have the benefit of time, though not much, to get to work on this future. Keep demanding that of DPS.
For the 3,165 below-proficient students identified above, the time to act is now. Shame on all of us if we take an honest look at these data and do not act, boldly and swiftly, in the best interest of these students. For these students, it’s time for a “Big Mike” to deliver an offensive tackle.
Thank you,
Jill
Ps: I also created a similar spreadsheet for the middle schools in the area. When you look at all of the schools in this context, it is easy to see why the urgency around Lake as currently organized exists and why it’s hard to argue with the data showing that West Denver Prep (WDP) is catching middle school students up at a faster rate than any other school in the city. When I look at the numbers of the incoming 6th graders above, if my goal is to make sure that they do finally catch up to grade-level and do enter high school prepared, then why wouldn’t I want them to have this option? While I also do believe in the capacity of the committed and effective teachers at Lake IB to, with good leadership and other supports, improve from where they are (I really do), the concern, though, is whether or not they will catch those students up as quickly as too many of these students need them to. WDP, on the other hand, seems like a surer bet for catch-up results. Sure, it is a legitimate question if the results will bear out if element of choice-in is taken away from such a highly-structured charter. I would have to concede that. But, I would argue two things: 1) I think the elements of school design and school culture will override the reduction in results; and 2) any resulting affect of choice would be minimal and WDP’s results are so much further ahead than its other middle school peers in Denver I am not sure that factor matters much.
Regarding the counter-proposal to place the Lake-bound WDP at Del Pueblo instead. As I look at the data for the incoming 6th grades from the above-mentioned schools, I am concerned that moving the WDP option so much further away would deny those students (especially those without transportation) at Cheltenham, Colfax, and other schools that are further west the opportunity to benefit from the West Denver Prep model. As of last Thursday, over 180 parents from Cheltenham signed letters of interest in enrolling their children in WDP at Lake. If we all agree that WDP is the most successful program we have in terms of catching students up, why would we want to deny that option to the very students who may need it (and want it) the most?
Click here to see this chart more clearly.
[i] “More than half of all Denver Public Schools (DPS) students who start in the ninth grade do not graduate within four years” (MacIver, Balfanz, and Byrnes (April 2009). Dropouts in Denver in the Denver Public Schools: Early Warning Signals and Possibilities for Prevention and Recovery. Baltimore, Maryland: CSOS Johns Hopkins University. Study after study shows that being significantly behind in reading proficiency when entering the ninth grade, is one of the early warning signals for students likely to drop out.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Jill has embraced a data driven philosophy that many in education and in the community tend to ignore. The first step in any decision is to look at the current reality. Not the reality of what parents want, but the reality of what the students need based on academic performance. Can Denver Prep and IB move students to where they need to be in three years? Do these programs have a record of doing so? As far as I know moving academically impoverished students from unsatisfactory to satisfactory is not the strong suite, nor is it the purpose of IB. Am I wrong on this? In any event, any program that wants in at Lake needs to know the needs of incoming students and needs to prove that they can move these students. I am impressed with Jill’s commitment to the community and to her insight. Why did Jill have to organize and present this data in this format? You’d think the people who get paid to analyze the data, the people at the district, would have done this. In any event, it is nice to know that at least one board member is making an informed decision.
Jill– I applaud the effort to understand “The Blind Side,” the less obvious influences on education. I feel strongly that a whole layer of causality is broadly ignored–which I’m guessing is because people are not accustomed to thinking about causality on the psychological level. Just like it’s taken several wars for people to think deeply about PTSD, it may take long-failing education to get people to look INSIDE students.
There are so many possible angles one can take, furthermore, that it’s easy to assume that we already know everything we need to know. What ‘new idea” could possibly make a difference? As a psychologist who’s worked at how classrooms affect children since 1971, I see some key ideas broadly ignored (that could account for the array of lagging indicators): how students are motivated, how subjective vs objective scoring affects them, the centrality of emotion and perception, the systematic nature of long-term knowledge retention, students’ influence over each other, the destructive power of broad purposes that are off-center, and so on. Instead of focusing on such subtle issues that actually determine students’ success, attention goes constantly to issues that resist change. A factor that can move rapidly, for instance, is that students change almost instantly as they move from the room of one (poor) teacher to that of another (good) teacher. As conditions align accurately with their needs, they “turn on.” This implies that school change need not take longer than a few days if we understand the conditions rightly. Think how fast a school could move if all the students were on the same page, saying “Yeah! We’re going to approach it this way instead.” This is indeed possible if people understand the problem differently.
For some thoughts about causative factors ignored, the URL below is the main page for EdNews.org blogs on education.. A half dozen of mine are still noted there offering some angles I think national education needs to hear. Should you want more explanation, there’s much more I can send or can answer questions. I can supply you an e-book copy of my book “The Silver Bullet Easy Learning System: How to Change Classrooms Fast and Energize Students for Success,” (Xlibris, 2008). Contact me at jjensen@gci.net. If you want to talk, I’m at 480-588-6200. The bottom line is that any school can turn around in a couple months if it teaches differently. if you’re not familiar with how this can be done, I’d appreciate the opportunity to explain it.
Best, John Jensen, Ph.D.. http://www.ednews.org/categories/blogs—educationnewsorg/education.html
Based on Jill’s comprehensive analysis, there is a need for a smaller (at this time) enriched program like IB and a tremendous need for a hghly structured, effective program like West Denver Prep, KIPP, or other highly effective, structured programming that creates a positive school culture and student success.
The effort to have an open evaluation and planning process is noble. I have been so impressed with your genuine concern and due diligence going in to the decision about the “turnaround” strategy for Lake. I just want to take this opportunity to express my feelings about these conversations about Lake. I can sum it up with one word: sadness.
There is a great gap between what off-site administrators and leaders perceive and what is really happening at Lake. There is too much complexity in the humanity of it. There is no way for these kids to “check their home lives at the door.” When we lost a sixth-grade girl to a random act of New Year’s violence a few years ago, the team of social workers who took over the building for two days reported to the staff that one thing they all agreed to was they had never been in a community with that much trauma in their lives. How can anyone understand that unless you live there day in and day out over the course of a few years? No teacher is adequately prepared or “professionally developed” for that job. When off-site leaders necessarily reduce their preparations for major decisions to a collection of yardstick readings (community input, CSAP scores, contracted studies), they too are not prepared for the job. The data and the comments of adult activists never seem like quite enough. Yet, from that vantage point, one must narrow one’s scope of the decision to what is measureable within the smallest definition of “school.” I have been in that role and I know that angst.
Lake teachers somehow find a way every day to adapt to the real life personal and academic needs of their students in spite of appearing to fail in both ways to the administration. They want things to be better for their kids. Yet they fail if they do not find a way to increase their students’ academic skills by at least two grade levels per year for three years. Imagine getting a Master’s degree and Ph.D. in three years. In my experience, the parents at Lake do not see the teachers and students at Lake as failing. Yet they do expect a great deal from their children and their children’s teachers—measured in a diversity of ways.
The greatest sadness I feel is for what the Lake community will likely experience next year when I imagine two schools dividing things up in the building. No, not things: kids, families, staff, ELA and Special Ed services, inclusion, least restrictive environments, growing economic integration, after-school help, physical and mental health services, and more.
I hope the board decides that sitting on the fence is not a plan, even if it is a plan for transition to one program or the other. Co-locating two schools in Lake is probably the worst solution for the students at Lake over the next few years. It is fraught with concerns that are much more serious than just the logistics of making it happen. Again, I hope you will reconsider a radical rebirth of IB for all at Lake.