Anger, blindness – and grading schools

Bianca McKerihan on November 24, 2010 in Education News

“Do you see this? … Look there, look there!” King Lear, Act V, scene III

Last Thursday’s “Montbello vote stirs up passions” (Denver Post) ended with these paragraphs. It quoted from opponents of the turnaround plan, who referred to previous district efforts at Manual and North High.

“Where is justice?” said Ed Augden, who said the reforms of the past have left students of color in worse positions.

But Stacie Gilmore, co-chairwoman of the Far Northeast Community Committee that has been meeting since April on how to remake the schools, said the community needs to put the vitriol behind.

“I would appreciate through this process going forward that we could really come together,” she said. “When there is so much fear and anger around an issue, it usually means here is a lot of hurt and pain. We need to start to heal as a community, as a city and as a people.”

During the Thanksgiving and Holiday seasons this English teacher often asked his 7th and 8th graders to write an essay on their values.  A time of year when we are more reflective, perhaps, of deeper hopes and beliefs.  This fall I ask myself to take on that assignment.

My themes are anger and blindness.  And there’s a suggestion, if it helps us to see.

Anger

First: Anger. Vitriol. Fear.  When there is outrage at efforts to make major changes in a school community, Denver’s Far Northeast, it is puzzling.  Puzzling because, according to the district’s 2010 School Performance Framework, 12 out of 16 schools there are either Accredited on Watch, Accredited on  Priority Watch, or Accredited on Probation. Puzzling because most of these 16 were among the 69 schools DPS rated as not “meeting expectations” in 2009 as well—and it’s been the case for too long.  Resisting change—when it is so necessary?  Isn’t this defending the indefensible?

An outsider to the community probably cannot understand.  An outsider without ties to the local schools—no friends and family who work there, no history with parents and grandparents attending those schools, no years of hearing “downtown” propose “solutions” that made little difference—and hence years (generations?) of mistrust that can’t be overcome even by a diligent effort to get community input—an outsider can try to empathize, but no, I can’t step inside the shoes of those in the Far Northeast community who feel they have not been heard.

Those close to the community tell me: “You have the legacy of so many failed reforms. Why believe this will be any better?” And as schools are often “a central crossroads” for the neighborhood, it is more than the school—it is the fabric of our community “they” are breaking up when decisions are made to turnaround and transform schools. And it’s not just 900 Grant Street.  They remind me of the suspicion and upset that comes from a history of feeling betrayed by top-down decisions from government agencies; by seeing your neighborhood transformed—in places gentrified; by a loss of the community you and your family have called home for decades.  They tell me it becomes “territorial, you and me versus them.”

Maybe it’s a bridge too far; maybe too many of us cannot connect with this anger, this mistrust.  And yet we must try.

But there is another kind of anger.  Like that also expressed Thursday night by Gregory Hatcher, a recent graduate of Denver School of Science and Technology: “There are too many students failing in the Far Northeast, and it’s not fair. It’s an injustice.”  Yes, where is justice, when year after year school achievement shows little improvement?  When so many drop out? When the results, for kids, are tragic?

Blindness

Second: We seek truth, but are often blind. Part of the tragedy of being human—an idea explored in western literature as far back as Oedipus Rex, on to King Lear, and one that continues to underlie our most enduring works of fiction.  In Oedipus the king uncovers the truth, which is so damning he blinds himself.  In Lear the blindness is first the King’s inability to see the truth and the lies in his daughters’ words, and a blindness to himself (as one deceitful daughter says, “he hath ever but slenderly known himself”); later the blindness is more literal, the gruesome moment in which Cornwall gouges out the eyes of Gloucester, who has also failed to see treachery in one son, devotion in the other.

The dramas build towards a painful realization of the truth, new “sight”—too late to change the fate of our main characters—but in time perhaps to offer them some redemption.

If self-deception and a refusal to accept the truth seems part of the universal condition, we shouldn’t be surprised to see it evident in debates about the economy, government entitlements, Iraq and Afghanistan, and –naturally—in K-12 education and how we look at our schools.

It would be arrogant to tell parents: You don’t see the truth about your son or daughter’s school.  But a question asked by DPS school board member Theresa Peña this past fall has stayed with me.  Ray Cortines, superintendent of the Los Angeles school district, was visiting Denver. Peña asked him about the challenge of finding parents more upset about schools being told to turnaround than about the ongoing low performance of their schools.

That’s my paraphrase of her concern. I sensed frustration in her voice: Where is the outrage, she seemed to imply, when the school in your community is consistently showing poor achievement and growth? Many of us wonder too: Why doesn’t that bring out local protest—rather than efforts by the district (and state and federal government) to say, “No more!”  To set up a process that compels low-performing schools to undergo major change—or to close.

Parents and community members (and teachers) might respond: what “truth” are you talking about, when you tell me our school is failing?  A truth based on state assessments? Based on data fed into a computer, a School Performance Framework (SPF) rating that knows nothing of the intangibles—the care, devotion, and tremendous effort we see in our school’s faculty day after day?  That fails to capture the marked improvement, the new climate we feel when we enter the school building these days….?

I hope it is not unfair to say, though, that this may be where emotion, loyalty, friendship—even familiarity–can blind us.  I would never say the whole truth was there in the 72-page power point presentation by the Far Northeast Community Committee, the “Proposed FNE Scenario,” given on Sept. 28, 2010, at Noel Middle School. (See just one small part of that presentation, page 5).  I would never say the all the facts can be found in CSAP tests, or the shocking rate of Montbello graduates unable to enter college without needing remedial classes, or the SPF rating.  But put them all together and they tell us something important, yes?  Add a different formula from the state—with similar results, putting 44 Denver schools in its lowest category, requiring a Turnaround Plan—and at some point we need to admit that the evidence is overwhelming.  We are fooling ourselves to defend the status quo.

Rating schools – what would help parents?

In response to Theresa Peña’s question, Los Angeles superintendent Cortines sounded sympathetic, but could only stress how vital it is to provide good information to parents.   Make sure families have the needed facts.  Colorado and DPS have made good progress here.  And yet, in spite of all the data, how can we still be in denial?  When one looks at the facts on page 5 from the FNCC about those six schools, how can a number of parents and community members join teachers to fight to maintain the current structures?  Which leads some to ask: in our goal of transparency, is it now all too complex – over 20 columns on Denver’s School Performance Framework? Is it possible to have TOO MUCH INFORMATION?

So now, one more question:  why not use all the information—and then give each school a letter grade?

Prior to the 2000 legislature Gov. Bill Owens presented his agenda of public education reform. I took issue with his plan to grade schools. In Another View #11 (Dec. 14, 1999) I wrote of the 15-30 page reports that I had helped work on for six schools as a member of an external team of 5-7 educators, after two–day visits. Even after submitting a report that detailed, our team would have said:

“… it is only a preliminary drawing, not a full portrait.  The comments are offered with a degree of  modesty that most educators consider respectful and appropriate.

“This is why I cannot fathom how outsiders who have never even been into the building would have the gall to grade a school community based on data and paperwork.  It is not respectful.  I find it exceedingly presumptuous.  I hope the state does not head down this road.

“On the other hand, I realize that the intent is not simply to give a school a B or a D.  The governor stated that the report card ‘will equip parents with the knowledge they need to make an informed decision as to which school is best for their child.’  This element I endorse wholeheartedly.”

For most of the past decade—many of them teaching in schools classified as Excellent or High on the state’s accountability reports—I would have held to that position.  I knew folks working as hard or harder, more gifted than me in reaching struggling students, in schools rated Low or Unsatisfactory.  If we were grading schools, these might have been labeled D’s and F’s—and that felt wrong.  The difference?  Not much, I suppose. Maybe it just seemed too harsh.

And yet now I hear the other side of the argument—and it seems time we consider it. Proving the Possible – A case study of Florida’s K-12 education reforms and lessons for Colorado (Oct. 2010), the recent report by Colorado Succeeds, recommends we borrow several practices from the sunshine state.  Among them:

“improve the Colorado Growth Model by replacing fuzzy school descriptors of Performance,    Improvement, Priority Improvement, and Turnaround with the letter grades A, B, C, D, and F ….An opportunity exists to more clearly and accurately label schools.  Parents can much more easily      understand grades, which convey a ranking scale in a way that a collection of descriptors will not. Many parents may not be too concerned if their child is going to an ‘improvement’ school; however, they will likely not be satisfied with a school that has earned a grade of C.”

Last spring the Arizona legislature passed SB 1286, which, according to Gov. Jan Brewer, “took an important step by changing the way schools are labeled.  We eliminated the ‘fuzzy labels’ of ‘Performing and Performing Plus’ and changed them to ‘A, B, C, D, and F’.”

And a number of other states just elected governors who plan to follow Florida and Arizona in making a similar change (see below).

If this were 1999 and we graded schools exclusively on CSAP achievement scores, I would still oppose this idea.  Or even 2008 when we were limited to CSAP, ACT, and growth scores. Kudos to Rich Wenning, associate commissioner at CDE, who has had a hand in how both the state and DPS have developed ways to include growth and a wide range of factors in assessing schools—for high schools even including college readiness.  Many now see the ratings as quite comprehensive, and—in great part—fair.

Is it nicer to call a school Accredited on Probation than to say it’s an F school? Sure. Does it oversimplify? Yes.  But is it helping parents? Is it communicating the appropriate urgency? Is it possible we have been more considerate of teachers, who will find a school grade discouraging, even humiliating, than of families—who want to make the best choices for their children?  Would we be less blind, less complacent, if we said that—by my count—this year Denver parents are sending about 10,000 students to schools Accredited on Probation, and instead we told them their child’s school received a grade of F?

Would it help us to see—and to act?  I am not sure.  But it seems a debate we should welcome.

The tragedy for Oedipus and Lear—for all of us—is when we see, too late to change.  The tragedy for many of our kids will be our fault, if we fail to open our eyes in time to improve their schools.

FNE Schools – School Performance Framework (SPF)

FNE Schools SPF – Overall

07-08   08-09   09-10

Rationale (for Turnaround) Green Valley 27% 32% 35% Consistent low performance, bottom 10% of all schools McGlone 30% 33% 33% Consistent low performance, bottom 10% of all schools Oakland 31% 29% 26% Declining performance last 3 years, 2nd lowest rated school in FNE Ford 42% 35% 25% Declining performance last 3 years, lowest rated school in FNE Noel 24% 30% 27% 2nd lowest rated middle school in the city Montbello 45% 41% 35% Lowest rated comprehensive high school in the city. Graduation rate is only 59% and for every 100 students who enter as freshmen, only 4 go on to graduate and go to college without requiring remediation.

From presentation by the Far Northeast Community Committee at Noel Middle School, Sept. 28, 2010.

Part of a 72-page Power Point presentation.  Produced by A+ Denver and Denver Public Schools.

Grading schools – Governors and other states

Studying the education positions of gubernatorial candidates across the country earlier this fall, I heard at least half a dozen candidates—from both parties—support the idea of grading schools.  Here are statements from three recently elected governors, who are likely to bring this idea to their legislatures.

Pennsylvania: Gov.-elect Tom Corbett has called for “the General Assembly to develop a school grading       system to better explain educational success and identify those schools that are in need of the most assistance. A grading system is recognizable and allows families to become more involved in the education of their children through a system that readily explains the quality of education and educational opportunities their children are receiving. Parents often can ‘trigger’ a turnaround in low-performing schools and can continue to push high-achieving schools to do better. To calculate grades – A, B, C, D, and F – the school grading system would be based on student performance on state assessments and other objective measures of student achievement, including proficiency rates, learning gains, closing achievement gaps, graduation rates, accelerated coursework and college and workforce readiness.”

New Mexico: Gov.-elect Susanna Martinez’s education platform stated: “The Legislative Finance Committee currently grades the Public Education Department on several performance standards, but parents, students, and teachers have no easy format to understand the performance of individual schools throughout the state. We should adopt an easy to understand, easy to implement system of grading our schools based on the traditional school grading format. Schools will be assigned letter grades of A,B,C,D, or F and these grades will be posted to an easily accessible website for parents, students, and teachers to access, which will help to increase performance in our schools as well as increasing transparency in our school system. We can only take steps to correct failure if we first identify it, and reward success if we measure it.”

Nevada: Gov.-elect Brian Sandoval’s education position during the campaign included this goal:

Grade Schools Like We Grade Students

“Brian believes parents have a right to know how their schools are performing. Therefore, Brian will implement a simple, effective school accountability process that does two things:

■ Assigns a letter grade (A, B, C, D or F) to indicate school achievement; and

■ Evaluates student growth as well as proficiency scores for a more complete picture.

In high schools, the grade will include graduation and remediation rate progress.

Brian’s accountability model will include financial incentives for schools that earn an “A” grade and schools that move up two letter grades in any one year. Incentives will be paid directly to the school, to be allocated by a site-based committee of school personnel and parents, for instructional supplies or programs. … failing administrators will not be allowed to continue. If a school receives a failing grade, the school administration will be issued a warning. If a school receives failing grades in consecutive years, school administrators will be dismissed and replaced. Period. No more delays. No more excuses.”

And next door, in Utah, we hear “State ed leaders to consider grading schools”(Lisa Schencker, The Salt Lake Tribune, Nov. 5, 2010). “Sen. Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, plans to sponsor a bill to hold schools accountable by giving them A-F grades.  (Now) State Superintendent Larry Shumway said Friday his office is also working on a rule to grade Utah schools based at least partly on academic performance. ‘It’s probably something that’s coming anyway,’ Shumway told state Board of Education members Friday, acknowledging that most educators would probably prefer not to assign letter grades to schools. ‘I would just as soon see you all involved in making the rule rather than less connected people further from the schools than you are.’”

Similar Posts:

Share

Leave a Reply