I looked at the DPS School Performance Framework (SPF) data in a number of different ways. There is some intriguing data, but I found a shorthand that I think serves as a pretty good summary.

Let’s look at the DPS schools with an SPF score equal to 65% or higher of possible SPF points (which is roughly the top quintile). This group comprises the top 27 of the 140 total schools.

Start with these 27 high-performing schools:

Filter #1. Elementary schools (and selective K-8) do pretty well.  Fully 21 of the top 27 schools are either elementary (16 schools) or K-8 (7 schools). Full kudos to these 21.  The problems at DPS are not primarily at schools with elementary students.

…Subtract these 21 and you have six schools left.

Filter #2. Of the six remaining schools, 2 are selective admissions (DSA and CEC). Good schools both, but if you get to choose your students, you have a bit of an advantage.  Partial credit kudos.

…Subtract these 2 and you have four schools left.

That’s pretty much it.  After these two filters, there are just four remaining public schools in Denver that are both open admissions and serve primarily middle and high school students. Four.

…Who are these premier four?

Three are charter schools: DSST (ranked #1 overall); WDP (#2); and KIPP (#21).  These are now clearly three of the four best open-enrollment middle and high schools in Denver, particularly given that they are all serving a substantial percentage of low-income students (respective FRL of 45%, 93%, and 93%). The top two overall schools in the district are now charters.

The remaining school, the one and only open-enrollment district school without elementary students in the top quintile (with 27% FRL) is East High (#14 overall). Congratulations to East.

So, to put this in perspective, how far down the list of 140 schools do you have to go to find an another open-enrollment middle or high school with a FRL percentage greater than the DPS average of 67%?  All the way down to #48.

How many of the lowest performing 27 schools (the bottom quintile) have a higher FRL population than the DPS average? 25 of 27.

Filter #3 is that if you are a low-income student in Denver, your future remains very, very bleak.

–

Updated Note: I should point out that while KIPP is listed as K-8, the school only has grades 5-8 and I thus consider them a middle school.  Any similar updates would be appreciated.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Some teachers who teach kids from low-income families swear by Ruby Payne and her seminal work “A Framework for Understanding Poverty.” Others find her work to be cloying, simplistic and damaging. For a fascinating, close-up look at this war of ideas (and ideologies), read this 2008 critique from the Teachers College Record, and Payne’s just-published response. Please weigh in — especially if you are a teacher.

Popularity: 9% [?]

The Education and the Public Interest Center at the school of education at CU Boulder has fired the latest salvo in the ongoing debate between the “factors outside of school matter most” faction and the “no excuses — schools alone can close gaps” group.

As usual in these debates, both sides make cogent arguments and both sides are right in places and wrong in places.

The current study, Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success, does not provide startling new evidence or break much new ground.  Rather, it argues, a la Richard Rothstein, that out-of-school factors do more to create and exacerbate achievement gaps than anything going on within schools.

David Berliner, the study’s author argues that

(1) low birth-weight and non-genetic prenatal influences on children; (2) inadequate medical, dental, and vision care, often a result of inadequate or no medical insurance; (3) food insecurity; (4) environmental pollutants; (5) family relations and family stress; and (6) neighborhood characteristics

“limit what schools can accomplish. ”

Berliner also argues that KIPP and similar schools are being held up as The Answer when they are nothing of the sort:

The occasional school that overcomes the effects of academically detrimental inputs-high rates of food insecurity, single heads of households, family and neighborhood violence, homelessness and transiency, illnesses and dental needs that are not medically insured, special education needs, language minority populations, and so forth-has allowed some advocates to declare that schools, virtually alone, can ensure the high achievement of impoverished youth. This point is made by Chenoweth in a book documenting schools that “beat the odds,” and it is the point made repeatedly by Kati Haycock, the influential head of the Education Trust, and other organizations like hers.

But these successes should not be used as a cudgel to attack other educators and schools. And they should certainly never be used to excuse societal neglect of the very causes of the obstacles that extraordinary educators must overcome. It is a poor policy indeed that erects huge barriers to the success of millions of students, cherry-picks and praises a few schools that appear to clear those barriers, and then blames the other schools for their failure to do the same.

So, ladies and gentlemen, your thoughts, please…

Popularity: 2% [?]

The Colorado Children’s Campaign’s released its annual Kids Count report last week, and the news was shocking enough to merit a front-page spread in the Post and even an article in the New York Times.  It seems that the number of children living in poverty in Colorado jumped faster than in any other state over the past few years.   In fact, Colorado’s increase of 73 percent dwarfed the next highest state, New Hampshire, which had 50 percent.

Not only are more kids living in poverty now than in 2000, but more live at extreme levels of poverty (50 percent of the federal poverty level or lower), and the trends hold across ethnic lines. 

So, once  we have prepared our fingers for pointing, where shall we aim them?   Colorado’s dismal performance seems to be a result of a combination of increased child care expenses, a tough economy, and a school system, on average, that is struggling to rise out of mediocrity.  Our state has also seen fairly dramatic increase in the number of immigrant families, who are likely to be poorer, although the ratio of immigrant to non-immigrant families has stayed roughly constant.

Our high child poverty rates should be cause for alarm, as they foretell economic and social woes in years to come.  As these children grow into adults, they will be statistically more likely to commit crimes, less likely to attend college, more likely to require more expensive health care, and less likely to hold high-paying jobs.

And what to do about it all?  While some of our state’s economic woes are our own fault (see my frequent punching-bag TABOR, along with other financial missteps), I suspect much of the problem is tied to bigger trends, such as increases in the cost of living for working people. 

I say we start with those things we know work to help bring kids out of poverty – education and child care.  Both should be accessible to all children, no matter what job their parents happen to hold. 

Popularity: 1% [?]