Posts Tagged ‘school improvement’

Tough decisions for school districts, and it’s not all money

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Jefferson County Public Schools (known as Jeffco Public Schools) is the biggest district in Colorado and one of the largest 50 districts in the country.  Its 80,000 students attend schools from the north, still part of the Denver metropolitan area, to the southern most hamlet of Deckers in the national forest near the headwaters of the South Platte River, and over to the front range Rockies at the west.

Like so many other suburban school districts in the western United States, it’s becoming a place for students of many ethnic backgrounds. The changing demographic began about 10 years ago and is accelerating.

At the same time, the whole district is now “mature” and built out.  Little new construction will occur, but plenty of re-construction of older buildings in less affluent parts of the county will be necessary.  School closures are also a possibility as some facilities are under capacity by over 50 percent.

The biggest long-term challenge the district faces is how to handle this transition from primarily white, suburban schools to a diverse population of kids speaking many different languages.  To make the problem more complicated, some of the district in more affluent areas is still primarily white.  And the resources to bring kids up to proficiency on the exams selected by The Colorado Department of Education are most necessary in the poorer parts of the county.

Jeffco Public Schools will probably lose about $11 million in January, 2010, when the state legislature pulls budgeted money back into the state’s general fund.  The district faces about $40 million in deficit financing from property taxes and state contributions in 2010-11 and another $40 million in 2011-12.  It has roughly $160 million in reserve, some of which will be applied to the budget deficits.

Based on the demographic demands and the budget deficits, how should the district allocate resources?

Should it hunker down and keep on trucking as it has?

Or should it take bold steps to attack school improvement of student math and writing deficiencies and reduction in the 25 percent high school dropout rate?

Are we in a time when bold is impossible because there is no money to fund it, even when the facts on the ground require bold action?

Jeffco Public Schools is not the only district facing this dilemma in Colorado or across the nation.

The time is here to make tough decisions, and they will affect the lives and education of many little kids depending on the adults to make the right ones.

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

*The school community wants to talk about this dilemma? Take Care!, showing ways for the school community’s adults to resolve problems successfully may help. See the website for this blog.

OMG, What To Do?

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

So you see (post 7-14-09), everyone in the education world is accountable for helping students become proficient in reading and math.

It turns out that some schools are doing well. They continue to turn out plenty of qualified applicants for high ranking universities. In addition, many schools are still able to hit their targets - just enough students can read at grade level and perform well enough on math exams to reach the yearly benchmark.

The question might creep into your head-what about the students that haven’t reached the yearly target?  Despite NCLB, some schools chronically under-perform.  No matter how stringent or how lax the state standards and exams, a large group of students do not do well in school. Many drop out before they finish high school.

Those students are the ones that schools must figure out how to be accountable for.  NCLB says nothing about how to save those students.  It leaves the nature, depth, and quality of any needed reforms entirely up to schools, school districts, and states.

This blog summarized studies that have analyzed what improving schools look like (post 6-30-09).

To begin a turn-around the federal administration and department of education have enumerated specific basic principles to improve the school day and year for the nation’s children.  For instance, on the Education Agenda of the current White House website, the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind legislation specifically states that money should be provided to support programs to retain and train teachers; provide mentoring and planning time; as well as address compensation for work in schools with high need students.

Teachers examine data

Teachers examine data

With those principles in mind, the blog reader should go to the Partners in School Innovation Foundation, based in San Francisco, for information about the ‘cycle of inquiry,’ one model based on the business model suggested in the previous post which supports mentoring and planning time.

Such a strategy helps teachers and other school professionals be accountable.  For a former “program improvement” school like Grant Elementary in San Jose, California, a continuous ‘cycle of inquiry’ strategy was a major thrust to meet AYP goals.  As of 2008 data, school’s performance was 12% higher in reading/language arts and 22% higher in math than the state benchmarks required.

Ted Lempert, former assemblyman in the California legislature, heads a group called Children Now, which has useful recommendations about teacher compensation.  The group also strongly recommends transparency of funding resources and stable funding for schools, especially those working with high need students.

Speaking of money and teacher training, remember that there are many programs available, even in these tough economic times, to provide inexpensive, but valuable, professional development.  See the flexible DVD model Take Care! on the blog’s website.

The NCLB approach for holding schools accountable is clear.  The expected educational outcomes are clear.  Given the need, it’s unclear why the multitude of models available to achieve student success are so difficult to implement.

What Do You Mean-I’m Accountable?

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

As a reminder, the statistical data that evaluates every public school in the United States is reported as Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), a fixture of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

This data is the factor that determines whether or not you have reached the appropriate AYP benchmark and that’s what makes you accountable-whether you are a school district, school in a district, teacher’s class in the school, or student.

Analyzing data

Analyzing data

All schools receive their AYP score sometime in the summer or fall based on the results of a “determining test” administered the previous spring. Since 2002 the statistical data available tells the federal department of education how many students are proficient in reading, language arts, and math for that particular year.

The benchmarks are precise: a fixed percentage of students must reach proficiency, the percentage per year decided by each state.

No matter the student’s ability to speak English; status as receiving Special Education support; family’s income and education level; condition of the school’s facilities or its ability to provide students with adequate materials; not to forget the quality of the determining exam.

By 2014 the Act specifies that 100% of the students in the United States will be proficient in those two curricular areas.

NCLB legislation requires that exams to measure performance are given in third grade, seventh grade, and tenth grade.  Many states, however, require more.  In California tests are given yearly, second grade on.

Measuring performance to ensure quality is not new.  Business people have developed practical models to design excellent products and to ensure that the products are marketable.  Those business models share a few basic elements.

The people assigned to an undertaking understand the desired outcomes and have the tools needed to achieve those outcomes.  Assessments - based on valid criteria that reliably measure progress towards the desired outcomes - are made at regular intervals.

The team responsible for the undertaking analyzes the results of each assessment to determine what’s working (and therefore needs to be maintained or enhanced) and what’s not working (and therefore needs to be improved).

Here’s the rub.  States authorize tests, school districts organize the distribution of tests, schools give tests and students take the exams, fulfilling the assessment tool element.

All the other elements (e.g., standards of success, analysis, program improvement) are not outlined in the NCLB legislation and, even eight years later, are barely understood or implemented by many states, much less school sites.

A state department of education website can show the reader in detail the percent of improvement each school is accountable for each year.  The teacher’s unions explain implementation difficulties in detail for each state.  Go to your union’s website.

You will have considerable difficulty finding tools* that show how to assure school improvement from year to year.

(*An example is Take Care!, a tool to improve communication strategies among adults in the school community, striving to ensure student success.)