From Colorado: Tangential But Related

Children’s Action Agenda
Education
Draft 09-25-07

Vision for k-12 education: To ensure educational opportunity and advancement for all of Colorado’s children.

? 15,500 Colorado students who started as freshman in 2001 had not graduated four years later. Only half of Denver Public School students are graduating on time.

? Colorado ranks at the bottom 5th in terms of wealth spent in public education. Colorado spends $551.00 per child less than the national average.

? High school dropouts earn an average of $9,245 less than high school graduates annually. The estimated cost of lost earning potential to the Colorado economy is $3.4 billion dollars each year according to recent report by the Donnell-Kay Foundation and the Colorado Children’s Campaign.

? Colorado’s drop-out rates continue to increase.
Dropout Rates – Historical Overview

Goals for children and education:

1. Quality - Differentiate Colorado schools and instruction

2. Accountability - Eliminate redundant government accountability systems and reduce costly and conflicting mandates

3. Funding - Invest adequately and equitably in Colorado’s schools and children

4. Assessment -Expand indicators of student achievement and school success

5. Access - Adopt targeted strategies and solutions specific to high-risk children and responsive to the needs of individual schools

1. Quality
Differentiate Colorado Schools and Instruction.

Understanding Colorado’s children:
? 254,653, students qualified for free and reduced lunch in 2005
? 7,592 homeless students in Colorado in 2006
? 78,756 identified special education students
? 99,819 English second language learners
? 53,940 identified as Gifted and Talented

If we are truly to provide schools of learning, then we must first recognize that every child is unique and their capacity unlimited. No single model provides the answer for every child and no system-wide overhaul the answer for every school. The solution to meeting the complex needs of individuals is not uniformity or standardization, but differentiation.
Schools are a reflection of the communities they serve. Currently, some schools are terribly deficient while others are overwhelmingly successful. The one-size-fits-all model in education has failed to address the unique challenges and strengths of our 176 urban, rural, and suburban Colorado school districts and the children they are designed to serve.
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) at the NCLB reauthorization hearing declared, "The case for change in America's high schools is well documented: The graduation rate is too low, too many students are struggling learners, and much of the curriculum needs to be revamped to better prepare our youth not just to become employed, but also to be informed, compassionate, and productive citizens." Vilsack lauded ventures such as Dual Credit that enable students to earn college credits while still in high school. However, Vilsack warned against "one-size-fits-all" solutions and said, "Just as each student has very individual gifts and needs, each school and each district is unique in its strengths and challenges, and must be allowed to develop its own plan for action, reform, and success."

Executive Recommendation 1A: The frenzy of educational legislation has resulted in no improvements in our public schools. The bottom line is that schools and educators need to become more responsive to children, rather than to policies. In order to promote the type of systemic educational changes required from a rapidly changing, complex, global world, local districts need the resources to adapt, strong leaders with the authority to lead and make changes, flexibility for teachers to teach, opportunities for children to learn, and an invitation to parents to participate not just in the fundraising but in the educational decisions of their children.

Executive Recommendation 1B:
Differentiating schools and classroom instruction by implementing a variety of magnet schools throughout Colorado is another way to begin transforming Colorado’s schools. The magnet model offers parents and students an array of options to best suit their ability, learning style, talents, interests and future goals while promoting leadership, supporting teachers, empowering students and involving parents. Magnet schools are public schools, managed by the district. It’s time we recognize that a one-size-fits-all model will never meet the needs of a diverse population, educating diverse children for a diverse world. Some examples of successful Colorado magnet schools include: Montessori, experiential learning, bilingual, performing arts, gifted and talented, British primary, and alternative high schools. Additional magnet options may include schools for mathematics and engineering, science and technology, vocational education, leadership, foreign language, visual arts, Waldorf, and so forth.
Colorado’s Mapleton school district is the first in the nation to adopt a district-wide model of differentiating schools. Mapleton’s model of innovation and leadership can be duplicated throughout Colorado, beginning with the schools serving the most at-risk students. Adequate support and resources are essential for transforming schools into individualized learning communities that promote human development, a powerful citizenry, as well as an accomplished workforce. Expanding the model of differentiation in schools and classrooms does not require legislation. It does however, require leadership.

2. Accountability
Eliminate redundant government accountability systems and reduce costly and conflicting mandates.

Timeline of School Reform and the Implementation of overlapping accountability systems:
? 1999 Accreditation Accountability Act Signed by Governor Romer
? 2000 School Accountability Reports, SB 186, signed by Governor Owens
? 2002 No Child Left Behind Act signed by President Bush

Five Costly and Conflicting Accountability Systems

1) Federal No Child Left Behind – requires all children to be 100% proficient on state tests by 2014.
2) State School Accountability Reports (SAR’s) – evaluate schools based on students’ responses to the Colorado State Assessment Program (CSAP).
3) Colorado Department of Education - Regulating agency responsible for the school Accrediting Act, licensing teachers, and enforcing state and federal mandates.
4) Local school boards - Ensuring accountability through the election process.
5) Site Based Accountability - Decentralized management -Superintendent, principal, school accountability teams, parents and students.

? The 2006 School accountability ratings labeled 352 schools “Low”, and 21 Unsatisfactory. (Need the graph of % of low-income)

? Under the guidelines of No Child Left Behind 467 schools did not meet AYP. 39% of Colorado’s districts did not make AYP

? There is no state-wide cost analysis that identifies the cost for complying with the No Child Left Behind Act; a Federal Registry notice in October 2007 estimates the national burden for meeting the NCLB reporting requirements at $135,000,000 . (This does not include the costs of any testing.)

Two Conflicting Measurement Tools

? Conflicting results on state and national standardized tests tell us more about the measurement tool than the children they are attempting to measure. CSAP and NAEP have shown significantly different results for student achievement in Colorado.

? Over the past six years, Colorado has spent more than $300 million dollars (more than $50 million annually) to distribute and administer the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP).

? Although Colorado uses CSAP data to make critical decisions and judgments, the Colorado State Assessment Program and McGraw Hill have never been independently audited or evaluated for validity or reliability.

Three redundant and conflicting reports:

1) School Accountability Reports (SARs)
2) Annual Reports (Required by NCLB and Colorado’s Accreditation Policies)
3) School Improvement Plans (developed by each individual school)

? The unfortunate aspect of competing accountability systems and duplicative reports is that parents and communities are now bombarded with conflicting information. In a study of three districts, 23 schools were given conflicting ratings from competing government accountability systems.

? David Tyack and Larry Cuban concur that reforms “have added complexity,…brought incoherence,” and “made new demands of time on heavily burdened teachers.” Littleton Public Schools reports a 608% increase in reporting (69 required reports in 2000, compared to 489 reports required in 2006). The cost alone for simply sorting and mailing the CSAP tests in LPS is $16,000.

Competing accountability systems have been proven costly and ineffective. Schools that first must serve over-reaching federal mandates, burgeoning bureaucracies, and wasteful policies will always serve children second. Conflicts in test scores, government evaluations, and expensive reports have not brought clarity or transparency to public schools. Instead, parents and citizens are inundated by expensive reports and confused by contradictory measurement tools. More of our tax-dollars are directed at compiling data and printing reports and less of it is spent in the classrooms where it makes the most difference. School accountability has not been strengthened but rather transferred to test publishers. The results of Colorado’s “accountability reforms” have meant an increase in drop-out rates, higher rates of youth incarcerations, and fewer college graduates for which neither legislators nor test publishers have taken any responsibility.

Legislative Recommendation 2A: Streamline accountability systems by removing the former SB 186 (School Accountability Reports). All four other accountability systems would be retained including: district accreditation, individual school improvement plans, teachers licensing and on-site yearly evaluations. Repealing SB186 has no impact on the amount of CSAP testing currently being required by NCLB. A repeal of SB 186 however, will eliminate one of the reports and eliminate Colorado’s discredited process of grading schools on the sole basis of standardized test scores. This legislative recommendation recovers a savings of millions of dollars that can be redirected to early childhood education, technology, and evidenced based programs that target at-risk children.

_________________________________________________________

3. Funding
Invest adequately and equitably in Colorado’s schools and children

? A 2001-2002 Adequacy Study by Children’s Voices concluded that the state spent between $568 and $841 million less than would have been required for school districts to bring all students up to required standards. The adequacy study has now been updated to reflect increased requirements under No Child Left Behind and increased costs. Taking those factors into account, the study concluded that current funding is at least $630 million per year below what would be necessary to allow schools to meet current standards.

? Colorado scores below average on resource equity funding. Advantaged children attend the wealthiest schools while the most economically disadvantaged children attend the poorest schools.

? Educational investments are directly correlated with Gross National Product. Education yields a greater return on taxpayer investments than any other government expenditure.

The consequence of Colorado’s inequity - a return to segregation

? Race continues to play a significant role in education. In a comprehensive study called Denver Divided: Sprawl, Race, and Poverty in Greater Denver, David Rusk reported of 39 schools that were 90-100 percent minority, all 39 had a majority of low-income pupils. The odds are four-to-one that a pupil in schools with a predominant minority student population will also be attending schools where the majority of students are low-income. At the other end of the scale, none of the 172 schools that were 80 percent or more Anglo had majorities of low-income pupils. In fact, only 11 of all 267 majority-Anglo schools had majorities of low-income pupils.

? National studies have consistently determined that low-income students perform significantly better among middle income and wealthy students than in schools where over half of the students are low-income. Yet, a study by David Aske, economics professor, of the University of Northern Colorado revealed the following conclusions:
87% of whites were enrolled in the top 10% of performing schools
7% were enrolled in the bottom 10% of performing schools
5% of students participating in free and reduced lunch are enrolled in the top 10% of performing schools
81% of students participating in free and reduced lunch are enrolled in the bottom 10% of performing schools

Social inequities institutionalized in our educational system impede a low-income and/or a minority student’s ability to advance and break the cycle of poverty. Discrepancies in funding are reflected in discrepancies in achievement. Denial of basic services to children and deferred educational opportunities promulgates adult dependency and perpetuates the conditions associated with a welfare state.

Legislative Recommendation 3A: The implementation of a statewide funding formula that resolves current funding discrepancies and ensures both adequacy and equity. The recommendations from the evidence-based to school finance adequacy approach have been used by the Arkansas and Wyoming legislatures to restructure their states’ school finance structures. Connecticut’s complete model for tying equitable school funding to accountability is detailed in this pdf:
http://www.hartfordi...

Legislative Recommendation 3B: The development of a comprehensive strategy for school districts to work collaboratively towards economic integration. Boulder Valley Schools Re 1 have already embarked on a plan to de-stratify and institute socio-economic balance in every school.

4. Assessment
Expand indicators of student learning, teacher quality and school success.

? Curriculum has narrowed under the constraint of high-stakes testing and school electives have been cut.

? Assessments are an integral part of every educational format and essential to the teacher tool kit. Assessments at the classroom level are instructional. CSAP and national standardized tests (NAEP) monitor and compare but are not learning tools. We must begin to recognize the distinction between assessing for teaching and learning purposes and testing to monitor and compare.

? Kaplan data about the public feeling that we have too much testing

? Using the free lunch indicator alone, DU researcher Lisa Piscopo was able to predict student performance on the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) with 81% accuracy, proving once again that income is the greatest indicator of achievement.

The one-size-fits-all measure of achievement neglects social, emotional, biological, economical, genetic, and cultural differences inherent in children. The goal of "sameness" or standardization conflicts with the skills demanded in a global world that requires imagination, creativity, adaptability, resourcefulness, dedication, divergent thinking, complex reasoning, information analysis, interpersonal communication, collaboration, cooperation and so forth. The purpose of assessment is two-fold. The first is to identify students’ areas of need, interests, or understanding and to modify instruction based on those findings. The second purpose is to identify students’ strengths and focus on cultivating those talents and abilities that will carry them forward as engaged citizens, contributors to their communities, and enlightened human beings.
The mistake that we have made with the Colorado State Assessment Program and standardized tests is to misuse them as a measurement of teacher effectiveness and school quality.

Legislative Recommendation 4A:
Meet the minimum requirements for testing and reporting as mandated under No Child Left Behind. Colorado currently exceeds NCLB testing requirements. The savings of this legislative recommendation is more than $10 million dollars and can be directed back into the classrooms and at early intervention where our money makes the most difference.

Executive Recommendation 4B:
Create a school accountability oversight board – The General Assembly should consider establishing a non-partisan permanent board devoted to oversight of accountability related state expenditures in education. Members would also include non-legislators with expertise in education as well as parents and students. Local school boards should be given the opportunities to “show and tell” the challenges they face daily and the progress they are making in addressing those challenges. Designating “up close and personal” days for legislators, CDE, and municipal officials to visit schools, observe classes, talk with practitioners, students and parents. Public forums where parents and students were invited to share their experiences could strengthen mutual understandings, reinforce accountability, improve assessment, and ground local and state policymaking in the everyday reality of schooling across the state. The oversight board would be charged with collecting information, synthesizing the boards findings, and making recommendations to the Colorado Department of Education and the Governor.

5. Access
Adopt targeted strategies and solutions specific to high-risk children and individual school needs.

? Colorado’s dropout rate is steadily increasing. 2004-2005 saw a dropout rate of 4.2 percent. This was a 0.4 percentage point increase from the 2003-2004 school year (3.8 percent) and a 1.8 percentage point increase from the 2002-2003 school year (2.4 percent). (Get 2006 increase)
? 15% of Colorado’s children live in poverty
? 44% of Hispanic students graduate from high school on time
? 56% of African-American students graduate high school on time
? It is estimated that one out of every four drop-outs is gifted (source)
? The Colorado Preschool and Kindergarten Program estimated 7,931 eligible students not served in 06-07 because of the lack of funding.

Educational reforms over the past two decades have obliterated programs and consumed resources previously directed at increasing opportunity for high-risk children and balancing social inequities. The outcome of both legislative policies and priorities have meant declines in achievement, increases in drop-out rates, fewer college graduates, and lost state revenues as a result of unemployment, incarceration, and remediation services. Targeting resources simply means recognizing where the needs are and directing resources accordingly. We have done the opposite of that in Colorado and throughout the nation. Poor children attend poorly funded schools with fewer resources and less qualified teachers. Gifted and talented children are especially neglected in a system that strives only for “proficiency.” Children with learning disabilities have never received the full services federally mandated and we continue to assess their development with the wrong measurement tools. Education has weak mechanisms for recognizing and responding to children who lack family support, resources, and are susceptible to physical, sexual, and emotional trauma. Misplacements, inadequate services, and insufficient resources are costly failures on the part of government priorities and education. Colorado has yet to provide services and the support system to adequately develop at-risk children and prepare them with the life-skills that contribute to their independence and Colorado’s success.

Executive Recommendation 5A:
Intervention and prevention programs that raise awareness, build community, and respond to the specific needs of children are the answer to closing the achievement gap, improving Colorado’s high school graduation rates, and reducing youth incarcerations. Research shows that both the school environment and the social and economic conditions confronting students outside of school impact student achievement. While program recommendations should not be prescriptive, Governor Ritter and the Colorado Department of Education should work with districts to remove barriers, identify resources, and develop partnerships to target services to children in need. In addition, cooperative efforts with libraries, recreation facilities, businesses, and faith based groups have increased access to quality after-school programs and should be further expanded.

Legislative Recommendation 5B:
Many cities and counties have already begun to recognize the long-term costs of neglecting children especially those who are at the greatest risk. The city of Littleton, for example, has implemented six child-centered evidenced based programs. Life Skills Training, Functional Family Therapy, Bully Proofing, Incredible Years, and Nurse Family Partnerships reach thousands of children every year. These six initiatives cost about $100,000 and are paid for by the city’s general fund. Colorado would be wise to offer matching grants to cities, counties and districts that implement evidence based prevention and intervention programs.

Legislative Recommendation 5C:
To thrive, children need nurturing families and quality early learning experiences. Programs that target families with infants and toddlers, such as Early Head Start, have been shown to improve children’s cognitive development as well as parenting skills. Access to high-quality preschool for 3 and 4-year-olds and full-day kindergarten is critical. SB 199 has already created 2,000 new preschool slots for the coming year. The Children’s Action Agenda applauds those efforts and supports the Bell Policy Institutes Recommendations to increase quality, affordable preschool and optional full-day kindergarten. Those Specific recommendations are available in the Bell Policy Implementation Memo No. 3.