The PEBC Network
Click to PEBC.org
Click to EdNewsColorado.org
Click to Boettcherteachers.org
Click to Education Research and Practice

Author Archive

Can you teach teaching?

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

In this remarkably insightful article, Doug Lemov seems to think so:

Central to Lemov’s argument is a belief that students can’t learn unless the teacher succeeds in capturing their attention and getting them to follow instructions. Educators refer to this art, sometimes derisively, as “classroom management.” The romantic objection to emphasizing it is that a class too focused on rules and order will only replicate the power structure; a more common view is that classroom management is essential but somewhat boring and certainly less interesting than creating lesson plans. While some education schools offer courses in classroom management, they often address only abstract ideas, like the importance of writing up systems of rules, rather than the rules themselves. Other education schools do not teach the subject at all. Lemov’s view is that getting students to pay attention is not only crucial but also a skill as specialized, intricate and learnable as playing guitar.

I confess I am not a neutral in this debate — Doug is a long-time friend and former teammate, and it was he who first introduced me to the main tenants of education reform almost 15 years ago.  I’ve always considered him one of the most thought-provoking people I know.  We first talked about this subject when Doug stared on his taxonomy years ago.  I think it should be required critical reading for both teachers and parents (although I wish there was a free summary available, you can get a gist through Google Reader).

And the point here is both profound and simple.  While some teachers will recognize a special innate ability in a student, they chose their profession because they believe in their ability to help kids become better learners.  It is a small but critical step to extend this to the other end of the classroom — yes there are some teachers with native skills, but there are ways to help adults become better teachers.

I have seen very few teachers who are not devoted to their profession, and absolutely none that began with less than the best intentions.  I believe strongly that various grinding gears of our public education system prevent teachers from being successful.  I hope this article and the subsequent discussion help even the playing field.  Just as every child deserves a quality education, every teacher deserves the ability — and should embrace the responsibility — to fully develop their craft.

Popularity: 28% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Alternatives to seniority-based layoffs

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

In the discussion regarding direct [see comment below] placement of teachers, it is sometimes perceived that this system is the standard course of events — that our nation’s public school systems all have a similar process.  A report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) finds that there are several practicing alternatives to how individual school districts approach this decision:

The report … covers 100 districts nationwide, 75 of which reward seniority with job security. But most states don’t mandate seniority-based layoffs; they leave the decision up to districts. Twelve districts in the TR3 database use teacher-performance criteria, with Jackson, Mississippi, in particular, basing 60 percent of its decision on individual performance, 20 percent each on seniority and certification. In Davis, Utah, teachers who performed unsatisfactorily on their latest evaluations shoot to top of the layoff list.

The report states (or understates) “The factory model approach of last-hired, first-fired is unusual among white collar professions” and goes on to note the wide impact on students from the seniority-based layoff process.  It further points out that two of the sacred cows of the teaching profession — preserving jobs and increased teacher diversity — are negatively impacted by this process.

Instead of laying off 875,000 teachers to accommodate a 10 percent reduction in school budgets nationwide, districts would only have to lay off roughly 612,000 teachers — saving more than 250,000 jobs — by allowing criteria other than seniority to be factored into decisions about reductions in force.

In addition, seniority-based layoffs may cut into hard-won diversity in the teacher corps. For example, in California, school districts have managed to increase the number of minority teachers by 14,000 across the state since 2001, but layoffs of these more junior teachers under a last-hired, first-fired policy could erase much of this progress.

Layoffs are never easy, but faced with their inevitability, doing them as well as possible is deeply important.  This report is worth a read.

Popularity: 11% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

The disease of direct placement

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Tomorrow, the Denver Board of Education will hear public comment on and discuss Superintendent Boasberg’s proposal to limit forced direct placement for Title I schools.  While I continue to believe this policy — which turns a free-form dance into musical chairs — is a good first step, it does little to address the root cause.

Data on DPS direct placements is fascinating: the disparity for Title I schools — which house a higher proportion of students in poverty — is well documented.  Less well known is how specific grades are affected: if you looks over the past three years, each DPS traditional middle school averages 6 direct placement teachers, compared to high schools (4), K-8 (3) and elementary programs (2).  That seems a tough burden to continue to sap DPS’s struggling middle-school sector. Also little known is who does not take DP teachers: both Charter and Innovation Schools.  That the proponents of education reform both outside and within the DPS establishment both believe it is a bad idea is as clear a signal as I can imagine.

Aside from the specific DPS proposal — which does not even forbid DP’s at Title I schools, it just tries to limit it — is the greater context of forced direct placement.  For this practice is a disease, and while Denver is not as sick as other cities, it would be an error not to understand the full extent of the illness.

Read, for example, this LA Weekly article titled “LAUSD’s Dance of the Lemons.”  What is fascinating here, apart from the sheer injustice of the practice, is that among LA’s public employees, the inability to terminate poor performers is unique to the school system:

Just a few blocks from LAUSD’s skyscraper headquarters, Los Angeles City Hall’s approach to firing public employees provides a stark contrast to protections enjoyed by teachers, also public employees. Despite civil-service protections, City Hall fires from its 48,000-plus workforce of garbage, parks, street-services, engineering, utilities and other employees more than 80 tenured workers annually. During the past decade, in which LAUSD fired four failing teachers, 800 to 1,000 underperforming civil service–protected workers were fired at City Hall. City Personnel Department General Manager Margaret Whelan says nobody is paid to leave. She was dumbfounded that LAUSD is paying to dislodge teachers, saying, “That’s ridiculous. I can’t believe that. Golly, it makes no sense. Some are not even mediocre, they’re horrible.”

Also worth reading is the New Yorker essay — generally recognized as one of the best long-form pieces of journalism last year — on New York City’s rubber rooms.

Lastly an Op-Ed from NYC Chancellor Joel Klein — who found that prosecuting Microsoft for monopoly practices was a cakewalk compared with trying to fire NY teachers with a history of poor performance.

Denver is not LA or NYC (thank goodness).  The problem of forced direct placement here is — like the city itself – smaller and more manageable.  However just because the harm is on a lesser scale is not a reason for inaction.  At least one member of the board has already dismissed Boasberg’s proposal as a PR stunt.  But until Denver and other cities do away with forced placement altogether and move to a system of mutual consent, the disease of direct placement will continue to claim as its primary victims the one group that has no say in the practice and does not participate in the debate: children.

Popularity: 30% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

It goes to 11…

Monday, February 15th, 2010

A state Senator in Utah has a plan that many in the state see as attractive given a $700M budget shortfall.

The sudden buzz over the relative value of senior year stems from a recent proposal by state Sen. Chris Buttars that Utah make a dent in its budget gap by eliminating the 12th grade. The notion quickly gained some traction among supporters who agreed with the Republican’s assessment that many seniors frittered away their final year of high school..

It’s quite something when the perceived solution to an education problem is … even less education.  A similar solution for a perceived constraint was suggested by my generational high-school philosopher Nigel Tufnel who noted, that if you’re already on 10 on your guitar, where can you go from there? Where? Where?

High School in Utah?  It goes to 11.

Popularity: 6% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Lemon musical chairs

Monday, February 8th, 2010

In another sign that antiquated and harmful education practices once thought sacrosanct are starting to fall, Denver’s “Dance of the Lemons” — the process by which the teachers no principal will hire are forcibly placed into a classroom somewhere in the public school system — may finally change.

Last year, the Denver Post noted:

Nearly three-quarters of unassigned veteran Denver Public Schools teachers who have not found jobs are forcibly placed into schools with the poorest students… Under union and district rules, these direct placements are made without regard to the desires of the teachers, school principals or parents.

On Friday, DPS superintendent Boasberg announced his intention that the District’s lowest performing schools — almost all with high poverty student demographics — become exempt from receiving any of these teachers.

This is a significant move by DPS, and also long overdue.  Now the music still plays, and lemon dance is not over yet, as under the DCTA contract these teachers will have to be placed somewhere, but the seats are going to be a little harder to find, and far better illuminated.  When higher-performing schools, which generally have a stronger culture and leadership, and more engaged parents, get stuck with lemons, you can bet the chance the system undergoes change increases, because the tolerance for bad teachers will be far lower.  I’ve written about the power of affluent parenting previously — if some of Denver’s best schools suddenly face the forced hiring of several teachers, expect some parents and civic groups to finally take a stand on this deplorable practice.

There is increased agreement that education hiring should be by mutual consent (both the teacher and the principal agree to the hire), an approach that was embraced by the rest of the employed world, oh, just a few decades ago.  Changing the lemon dance to a game of musical chairs is a good first step, but far better would be to turn the music off entirely.

Popularity: 29% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Anonymous comments

Sunday, December 6th, 2009

I’ve blogged under my name on this site for some time, and I am not one to duck hard posts and controversial issues. Recently, in response to an anonymous post and the continuing presence of an anonymously authored blog, I responded anonymously myself.

I’ve now been “outed.”  In hindsight, I think that is probably good — my comment was harder and more direct than I would generally say, but I don’t regret the point.  It is my personal view, and I’ll stand by it.

I’ve posted a few anonymous comments on blogs (pretty rarely — most in the last few days).  I think there is a valid role for anonymous blogging – it lets comments stand on their own as the identity of the speaker can sometimes be illuminating and sometimes obscuring.  But I think that for controversial posts, it probably is a mistake.

So, here is the initial anonymous comment, and I am reposting my response under my name.

SaveLakeIB says: Without getting into the perennial quality vs. quantity debate, authentic community engagement isn’t a numbers-of-meetings issue. There are many community voices, and one of the things that has emerged in the discussions about northwest Denver is the large amount of common ground among these different voices. There are a lot of great models of how you authentically bring community together and have conversations, not presentations, and reach common ground. The Save Lake IB blog did a posting over a month ago with a youtube clip of one of Richard Harwood, a guru on this stuff. View the clip and let’s start thinking again about how we do this.

—-

Alexander Ooms: Nothing should surprise one any more in this dispute, but the claim that the SLIB blog has been calling for “common ground” with “many community voices” is a stunner.  I was late to this dispute, but  SLIB is, to my mind, the single most intolerant, abusive and divisive participant in this dialogue.

Time after time, the SLIB has dismissed any other opinion that does not support their point of view for a variety of claims: people were not “from the neighborhood,” activists who were “paid,” and the claim that anyone who did not agree with both you and “Arthur” Jimenez was motivated by race and ethnicity. DPS Superintendent and A+ committee were compared to Enron.  Anyone who who cited another opinion were “anti-union” and “against teachers,” claims that this was a schools “privatization” effort.  Stoking up fears that “your school may be next”. Rampant intentional errors of fact, as was your photo display on the “basement” classroom at Lake – which it turns out are at ground level and wonderfully light.

And now, suddenly, you have cleansed your site and your comments of all the vituperative bile, and are claiming to want “common ground” as casually as a teacher cleans a chalkboard after class.  The damage this bitter divisiveness of your comments and site in the NW  ”community” is likely to linger for years. To drape yourselves in the cloth of common ground after erasing your blog pages accusatory invective is perhaps the most cynical and disgusting act yet.

Popularity: 24% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

The turnaround fallacy

Friday, November 20th, 2009

A remarkable and contrarian essay (and video) in Education Next by Andy Smarick which addresses the current federal and district fascination with school turnarounds and makes a fairly persuasive historical point: they usually don’t work.

For as long as there have been struggling schools in America’s cities, there have been efforts to turn them around. The lure of dramatic improvement runs through Morgan Freeman’s big-screen portrayal of bat-wielding principal Joe Clark, philanthropic initiatives like the Gates Foundation’s “small schools” project, and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)’s restructuring mandate. The Obama administration hopes to extend this thread even further, making school turnarounds a top priority.

But overall, school turnaround efforts have consistently fallen far short of hopes and expectations. Quite simply, turnarounds are not a scalable strategy for fixing America’s troubled urban school systems.

As Smarick notes, schools are insulated from much of the healthy pressure which impacts most other institutions – private, government, and non-profit alike:

We shouldn’t be surprised then that turnarounds in urban education have largely failed. The surprise and shame is that urban public education, unlike nearly every other industry, profession, and field, has never developed a sensible solution to its continuous failures. After undergoing improvement efforts, a struggling private firm that continues to lose money will close, get taken over, or go bankrupt. Unfit elected officials are voted out of office. The worst lawyers can be disbarred, and the most negligent doctors can lose their licenses. Urban school districts, at long last, need an equivalent. [...]

Those hesitant about replacing turnarounds with closures should simply remember that a failed business doesn’t indict capitalism and an unseated incumbent doesn’t indict democracy. Though temporarily painful, both are essential mechanisms for maintaining long-term systemwide quality, responsiveness, and innovation. Closing America’s worst urban schools doesn’t indict public education nor does it suggest a lack of commitment to disadvantaged students. On the contrary, it reflects our insistence on finally taking the steps necessary to build city school systems that work for the boys and girls most in need.

The difficulty is that when turnaround efforts fail, the usual claim is of neglect: not enough money, time, people or planning.  The failure is then seen as a failure of reform. This essay posits the possibility that failure of a turnaround program may correctly be that they do not go far enough.

Popularity: 9% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

The reform stew…

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Recent news in the same vein: Big money into education reform. From the LA Times:

The Ford Foundation pledged $100 million Wednesday to “transform” urban high schools in the United States, focusing on seven cities, including Los Angeles.

The seven-year initiative is among the largest philanthropic efforts aimed at improving education in the United States and, as described, could both complement and challenge aspects of the Obama administration’s education reform efforts. It will fund research and reform in four areas: teacher quality, student assessment, a longer school day and year, and school funding.

But look closer.  This is not the usual cast of reformers.  As the WSJ puts it:

…the Ford press release contains not one mention of charter schools, vouchers, merit pay, or even Teach for America. [...] Ford’s formula for reform involves more money, less accountability and a bigger role for the unions.  [...] One of Ford’s first grants will go to the new American Federation of Teachers Innovation Fund, a “union-led initiative to make grants to AFT affiliates nationwide for innovative efforts established jointly by teachers, administrators, and parents.”

The gentle preview to a small dose of doublethink?

Popularity: 7% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Do charter schools benefit all students?

Friday, November 6th, 2009

A very provocative study that can be seen as a companion to the Hoxby piece in NYC.  An excerpt from a news summary summarizes it thus:

Marcus Winters, who follows education for the Manhattan Institute, has released a paper showing that even students who don’t attend a charter school benefit academically when their public school is exposed to charter competition.

Mr. Winters focuses on New York City public school students in grades 3 through 8. “For every one percent of a public school’s students who leave for a charter,” concludes Mr. Winters, “reading proficiency among those who remain increases by about 0.02 standard deviations, a small but not insignificant number, in view of the widely held suspicion that the impact on local public schools . . . would be negative.” It turns out that traditional public schools respond to competition in a way that benefits their students. [...]

One of the most encouraging findings by Mr. Winters is how charter competition reduces the black-white achievement gap. He found that the worst-performing public school students, who tend to be low-income minorities, have the most to gain from the nearby presence of a charter school. Overall, charter competition improved reading performance but did not affect math skills. By contrast, low-performing students had gains in both areas, and their reading improvement was above average relative to the higher-performing students.


Popularity: 11% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

DPS’s School Performance Framework, magnified

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

With the DPS Board election now over, it’s back to the grind. Much of the current discussion around DPS — including the bulk of a recent A+ meeting — is focused on the School Performance Framework (SPF). Now I like the SPF, I think it is rigorous and highly useful for comparing individual schools, and I applaud the district’s honest and transparent view.  However, as a snapshot of the District overall, the data is not presented particularly well — which makes sense, since that was not its original purpose.

But the SPF is increasingly used to evaluate the District as a whole.  The recent A+ meeting got me thinking about what the SPF information would look like if viewed with a wider lens and in a simpler presentation. Turns out it is quite a magnified perspective.

The SPF ranks individual schools on a variety of criteria, and places each school into one of four categories.  In ascending order of quality, these four categories are: On Probation, On Watch, Meets Expectations, and Distinguished. Looking at summary data for these categories, and it becomes clear that there are three significant areas where the SPF somewhat distorts the broader view due to its focus on individual schools.  The data is illuminating on all three:

1. Size matters. The SPF ratings do not factor the size of student enrollment in a school.  In a broader view, a good school of 500 students should be roughly equivalent to two bad schools with 250 students each.  However far more of the worst DPS schools have large student bodies. In the lowest category of “On Probation” there are 10 schools (of the 20 possible) with more than 500 students.  In contrast, in the highest category of “Distinguished,” just one school (of the 9 possible) have more than 500 students. So 50% of DPS’s worst schools have over 500 students, while less than 10% of its best schools have over 500 students.

2. Income matters. The SPF ratings do not factor the percentage of free and reduced lunch (FRL) students in a when ranking individual* schools. Presumably, if we are trying to close the achievement gap, these are the students we want at our best schools (or at the very minimum we want them there in equal proportions).  Yet FRL students attend Denver’s worst schools in far greater proportions than their more affluent peers. About 2 of every 3 DPS students are FRL, yet in a stunning reversal only 1 of every 3 students in a Distinguished school is FRL.  Our best schools literally take the district’s base demographics and flip them upside down.

3. Grade matters. The SPF does not take into account the differences between schools serving different grades. Ideally, as students move through the education system they would get better options – having proficient 12th graders is more important than having proficient 1st graders.  But the data shows that the better schools overwhelmingly serve the elementary grades.  In fact, the closer a student is towards graduation, the more likely they will attend a bad school. With some basic assumptions, the data shows that a student is over 3 times more likely to attend a Distinguished school in grades K-5 as they are in grades 9-12.

Lastly, all three of these factors are badly exacerbated when combined. Consider the near-deadly combination of large schools, a high percentage of low-income students, and grades 9-12.  Just For example, within DPS there are** two large schools, both with On Probation status, that house over 1,850 students in grades 9-12.  Of these, about 1,42o are FRL students – remember, this is in just two schools among the 20 ranked lowest.  In contrast, how many total FRL students in grades 9-12 attend a Distinquished school?  Roughly 180 – all of whom are at DSST (a charter school).  How many FRL students are there in grades 9-12 at traditional (DPS operated) Distinguished schools?  Zero. Well, how many students overall in grades 9-12 attend a traditional Distinguished school?  Um, Zero.  That’s not a misprint: there is just one Distinguished school serving grades 9-12, and it is not operated by DPS. If you are an FRL student, in a large school, in grades 9-12, you are likely in the vortex of public education’s perfect storm.

If you’ve gotten past those three screaming ghosts of DPS present, here is the SPF data with a view across the entire District.  Again, the SPF ranks each school in ascending order of quality across four categories On Probation, On Watch, Meets Expectations, and Distinguished. Below is a graph which shows how many total students — both FRL and Non FRL — are in each school category:

Screen shot 2009-10-27 at 11.41.45 PM

Remember that the SPF is based around a median score, so that most schools will clump in the middle.  Two points in this graph are striking.  First is how many kids go to the district’s worst schools (10,477) versus attend the District’s best schools (3,577) — a ratio of almost 3 to 1.  Again, some of the District’s worst schools are among its largest, and if we are serious about improving outcomes, we need to address these first.  Being a small school does not guarantee quality (see Manual’s failed small schools experiment), but particularly in the older grades, it’s harder and harder to find large schools with significant FRL populations that are of high quality.

The second point is far worse: look at what happens to our poorest students – those that qualify for FRL status. Overall, FRL students are about 67% of the overall district.  But they make up a far greater percentage of students in the worst schools.  Here’s another look at the same data showing the percentage of students by income:

Screen shot 2009-10-28 at 12.01.11 AM

Denver’s worst public schools (those with On Probation status) have 83% FRL populations; its best public schools (with Distinguished status) have just 25% FRL populations. The better the school category, the smaller the percentage of FRL students who attend. Ouch.

There are about 50,000 FRL students in Denver: less then 2% go to a Distinguished school, while 17% of attend a school On Probation.  There are about 23,400 Non-FRL students in Denver; 11% go to a Distinguished school, and 7% to a school On Probation. As we’ll see in a minute, this division is as true in kindergarten as it is in high school.  If that does not make you think the deck is stacked against low-income kids, I don’t know what will.

What is also astounding, and what is not generally apparent from a school-based version of the SPF, is how the proportions change as kids move through the public school system. Now this is harder to ascertain from the SPF data: While schools are sorted by grades served, they do not list the distribution of kids across those grades.  If we make the generous assumption that the students are evenly distributed (so that a K-8 school has the same number and FRL percentage of kids in each grade), this is what the data looks like:

Screen shot 2009-10-27 at 10.35.19 PM

There is a sliver of blue in grades 9-12 for the students who attend Distinguished schools, but you have to squint.  Again, this is somewhat distorted since the distribution was smoothed, resulting in cliffs after both 5th and 8th grade, but the real numbers would likely be even less flattering (with an estimated 50% dropout rate between just grades 9-12, imagine how much the actual chart would slope down at the end). The number of kids in the bottom two school categories is somewhat consistent; it is the schools of quality that diminish.

Looking at the same data by percentages:

Screen shot 2009-10-27 at 11.45.37 PM

Under these assumptions, in K-5, a student has about a 1-in-2 chance of going to a school in the top two categories (Meets Expectations and Distinguished). By 9-12 grade, that chance is down to about 1-in-3.  In K-5, about 6% of students attend a Distinguished school.  By 9-12 grades, that drops to under 2%.  If you did the chart with the actual numbers, I’m guessing the difference between the elementary grades and students closest to graduation would be even more stark.

And those depressing statistics are for all students regardless of income.  When you start to look at the numbers by FRL, graphs no longer work because one simply can’t see the percentages as they are so small.  On any reasonable scale, the FRL students who attend Distinguished schools are literally invisible.  Since we can’t graph the data, here is the table. Remember again that there are far more FRL students than Non-FRL in the District:

Screen shot 2009-10-25 at 11.55.50 PM

The FRL percentage actually declines as students move through the system (which makes some unfortunate sense, as FRL students drop out of school at a much higher rate)  So, again under our assumption of even grade distribution within each school, in K-5 the percentage of FRL is actually about 70%, yet within the separate categories FRL students compose 86% of On Probation schools and just 13% of Distinguished schools. By grades 9-12, the overall FRL percentage drops to about 57%.  But the percentage of FRL students enrolled in On Probation schools stays high, at 74%. Low income students are far more likely to attend our worst schools – at the same time that far more of them also drop out altogether.

The top of the table bears some reflection as well.  While there are a number of Distinguished schools that serve K-5 students, they include far fewer FRL students.  The outlier jump in the percentage of FRL students in 6-8 attending a Distinguished school is unfortunately easily explained: West Denver Prep is a Distinguished middle school serving 93% RFL.  Since the base is so low, just one school of quality can make a significant impact.

In fact, there are only three Distinguished schools with students in grades 6-12.  These three schools serve approximately 1,040 students in grades 6-12.  The vast majority of these – fully 85% — attend either grades 6-8 at West Denver Prep (WDP) or 6-12 at the Denver School of Science and Technology (DSST), both charter schools (the remainder are in the final years at Slavens, which is K-8 and 5% FRL).  What is more alarming is that of the roughly 400 of these 6-12 students that are FRL, roughly 98% attend WDP or DSST.  What this means is that there are less than 10 FRL kids in grades 6-12 attending a traditional Distinguished school. That is shocking enough where it deserves an echo: less than 10 FRL students total attend the highest quality category of Denver’s traditional schools during the second half of their public education.

This is, frankly put, the worst of all worlds. In our democratic society, public education is intended to prepare all students for college or a career, regardless of the circumstances into which they are born. To me, a functioning public education system is one of the most important tenants of a civil society.  Yet this data implies that we systematically deny the equal opportunity of our best schools to the students who need it most.  I support many of the current reform efforts in DPS, and I continue to believe the current leadership is the best Denver has had in generations. DPS should be commended for publishing the SPF and being honest about the difficulties they face.  Their leaders are very smart people with the best intentions. But they are not in the schools, and it is in the schools where these challenges must be met.

Although I rarely get accused of underestimating the deficiencies of public education, I confess the sheer despair inherent in the summary SPF data surprised me. I tried to come up with a good ending to this post for a few days, but I can’t. In the end, the lack of a suitable finale may be appropriate.  No matter how one looks for it, for the vast majority of low-income kids at DPS, there is just no good ending.


Notes: Two comments deserve some clarification:

* The SPF accounts for FRL status in the student growth metric in that growth is measured within a demographically-similar cohort.  However the SPF does not weight the performance of an FRL student any differently than a Non-FRL student (i.e. if growth for each cohort was identical, a school serving a high percentage of FRL would be ranked exactly the same on growth as a school with a low percentage of FRL).  The final blunt ranking of schools also does not differentiate between schools serving different cohort groups (it would be an interesting exercise to see the data and rankings within each school cohort, which is here).

** The original wording could be read to imply that there were just two large schools serving grades 9-12 in DPS, which is not accurate; my intent was an examination of these two specific schools, not to say that there were “just” two.

Popularity: 38% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark
Daniels fundColorado League of Charter SchoolsColorado Childrens CampaignCollege InvestPitton FoundationsDonnell-Kay Foundation