a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
a strong voice for kids 2nd Congressional District
There will be a flyer accompanying the SARs to define terms, explain calculations, and explain features. It will be ready by October 31. The SAR Work Group has been meeting to create this. The SAR will look slightly different this year because of changes made by legislation. Also they are reviewing the CDE web page with appropriate changes. There will be an explanation of which tests are included in which ratings. The improvement ratings are based on the 18 tests that were given last year and again this year; the performance rating is based on the 26 tests given this year, which includes the ACT in 11th grade. CDE has realigned the proficiency levels on the Writing and Math CSAPs from last year to calculate the improvement ratings, so that the scores are compared on the same scales. This was done by psychometrician experts from various Colorado school districts. The data indicates that if schools' performance ratings change this year, it will be due more to the additional tests than to the rescaling. Sent out to all districts how their panel on School Employees will look, so they can check, change, and approve the data. For everything that looks unusual, CDE staff are calling districts to confirm (e.g., a charter school in St. Vrain Valley School District shows 400 students and no teachers; this is because the school calls their instructors "directors," and they do not wish to change the designation). Suckla heard complaints about the salaries listed, since they are an average for the district, and it gave the appearance that the teachers had a much higher salary than most were earning. Some fixes were done to average the full-time and half-time staff to adjust the salary accordingly.
The SARs will be sent to the schools by December 15. As soon as possible, it will be on the web; there is no longer a date in statute. We will have a press conference, but Moloney says that we are coordinating with the Governor's office on the date. He insists that the posting of the SARs on the web should be delayed until the release of the SARs because there is some finesse needed since districts may ask for changes. For example, some of the data might change from the time that the district confirmed the information, such as who is the principal. I asked how we can do any finesse, when the press will be reporting what is posted on the web, which is exactly what will be on the report cards. Apparently, the web may have updated changes that are not on the printed report cards. Also, there seems to be a question as to when it is public information. Stanford, Polis, and I advocated strongly to have the press conference as soon as the data is sent to the printer; Moloney would not make a definitive statement about it. No clear decision appeared to have been made.
An issue that may come up is: When schools are reorganized, such as what grade levels are in them, or like Manual High School they divide into three schools, how will their improvement be calculated? What will be the effect on the performance rating?
In the statute referring to the improvement ratings, 22-7-605(8), the newly added (f) requires the Board to write rules by July 1, 2002, on the "graphic depiction" of assessments for students learning English required by NCLB (which won't appear until 2005-6) - but it did not happen. Will it be changed in the next "clean-up" bill?
Regarding the longitudinal pilot program set up in HB 1349 - to calculate annually the amount of each student's growth in reading - very few districts have expressed interest in participating in this; it requires more work that districts are too busy to get into now. There might be a rescission of funding for this, since it has not been done this year.
CDE met with OSPB about our proposed budget. Their response was that they have no money. Predictions are for a $550 million shortfall in the state budget. They are concerned about the State Education Fund, but not making any promises or even predictions. They will not go on record for saying anything. They don't know enough to make any decisions. The JBC is asking what money has not been expended in the current year, to see if they can be prevent it from being expended. Areas where this could occur are textbooks, school breakfasts, school excellence awards, charter school capital construction, improvement bonuses, school lunch matching funds - programs that go out on a per pupil basis but are not constitutionally mandated in Amendment 23 - since the official count isn't in (yesterday was count day, but it can take until December for all the numbers to be finalized). Just in case we get an Executive Order to not spend all of our money, we should look at the programs and come up with a prioritized list for what we cut first. We will review the list next month and discuss priorities.
Hank Brown, now with the Daniels Fund, is wondering if we could license textbooks so that they are online. This discussion began in the subject of history, because there are many historical documents that do need to be protected by copyrights.
Do we have the authority to revert the portion that came out of the State Education Fund and supplant it with the extra Powerball money? The $15 million for this year's payment of the Giardino lawsuit would still be made, and the Powerball money would still be used solely for school capital construction. Probably. We will tell the Capital Construction and Renovation Fund committee that they can recommend the allocation of only the $15 million.
A parent is the child's first teacher, so the parent's role is powerful. Much research has been done by Sharon Darling in family literacy. Family literacy programs are based largely on this research, and they have four components: adult education, children's education, parent time, and parent-and-child-together time. In the family literacy programs, we're seeing the adults move ahead faster than they would have in a plain adult education program.
Federal education funds have been allocated to improve parents' education; in 1998 the federal government put them under the Workforce Education Act into the Adult Education and Family Literacy program. The Family Literacy unit in CDE is part of the Center for At-Risk Education, which combines the efforts of many different units in the department. Since 1994, the need for English language instruction has increased 59%, so the English Language Acquisition unit works with family literacy. Even Start grant money is also used for family literacy programs in Colorado. We have blended many funds and programs and were able to create a Family Literacy Consortium in the state. In 1999 the SBE decided that all adult education programs would have a family literacy component. We have been working to bring in new grantees. We have a broader base than just local programs. There is an article in the National Center for Family Literacy's newsletter: "Colorado Sets Example With TANF Partnerships." The last CSAP showed that 83% of children in Aurora's family literacy program were proficient in reading. That is significant! This program was funded by grants from Toyota. The Toyota Foundation continues to fund family literacy programs.
HB 1303, the Colorado Family Literacy Act, created a fund in the state that can accept grant money to expand family literacy programs. We are seeking a $500,000 grant from the Daniels Fund. The Act will be revoked unless "sufficient funds" are acquired. Members of the SBE are making personal contributions to the fund, which will go as one lump check. Stanford is proposing a resolution to be passed by the SBE tomorrow to encourage this, which resolves "that the Colorado State Board of Education fully endorses the creation of the Colorado Family Literacy Education Fund, congratulates the General Assembly and the Governor on passage of the Colorado Family Literacy Education Act, and encourages the corporate, foundation, and philanthropic community to contribute generously to the fund by December 1, 2002."
Just for the Kids is a school improvement program that uses data to analyze student achievement, promising practices, and educator training. There are 12-15 states that are currently using Just for the Kids. JFTK is working directly with 17 Colorado school districts in a pilot project to develop a data and school comparison picture, available publicly on the web, using CSAP data. The project is co-sponsored by several organizations, including the Colorado Partnership for Educational Renewal, CASB, and PEBC. At least 100 schools were needed in order to have enough data to make the project viable; actually had 500 elementary schools, using data from Reading CSAPs in grades 3-6.
We were shown what the website will look like for Colorado when it's available on the web soon (spring 2003). It will allow one to look up schools individually and see the CSAP results for each content area assessment. It shows the percentages of students who were proficient or advanced for all students tested and those tested who were continuously enrolled, and compares to the top-performing comparable schools. Must have at least 10 students who were continuously enrolled to be included; students on IEPs (special education) are excluded. Criteria for comparable schools are as follows: at least 40% of the number of tested students at that grade level, low income greater than or equal to selected school or 95%, and LEP greater than or equal to selected school or 100%. The website also shows the overall performance of the school compared with the top comparable schools.
JFTK data can be used to identify sustained high performance in districts, schools, and classrooms; conduct survey research and site visits to identify what teachers and administrators in high-performing schools do differently; and share the results online and through e-learning programs designed for educator and public audiences. They are hoping to put on the website examples of best practices from the high-performing schools; it took Texas 7 years to be able to compile this information about practices that have withstood the test of time.
The Regional Teams have an analysis of each region's CSAP results in percentages that are proficient/advanced for each of the 23 CSAP tests, showing whether they are above or below the state average for that test. The Regional Managers can use this data to see which districts are totally or mostly below the state average and target assistance to them; for example, aligning standards to instruction. [Note: This contains all the CSAP data, including scores that can't be publicly reported because the number of students tested would allow individual scores to be known.]
I pointed out that the districts below the statewide average across the board are the poorest districts. Stanford pointed out that in a couple of cases, the district may be performing higher than would be expected, such as Englewood and Pueblo 60, which are poor but have some tests above the state average. Polis said that he will do a correlation analysis between these percentages and the free lunch rates (poverty indicator). Suckla pointed out that some of the poorest-performing districts have trouble finding qualified teachers, and we might want to analyze how many licensed teachers they have. Orr pointed out that the quality of the leadership (administrators) is significant as well.
Colorado will have to participate in NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) again because of HR-1 (we had dropped out a few years ago when we started giving CSAP, because our largest districts decided to opt out; it was optional then). NAEP is based on frameworks developed by educational experts. Some of the CSAP items were based on NAEP. Letters were sent to districts telling them that they are required to participate or they will lose their Title I funds. Jeffco has already signed on. Students in 4th and 8th grades will take this test. It will take only 90 minutes total per student, including time for directions. The students and schools are selected based on stratified random sampling. A total of 246 schools, 62 students per school, will be tested - about 14,000 kids. Results will come out for the state only, not for districts or schools. The test is given in January or February, and the results will be released next September.
Dorothy Gotlieb, Director of Professional Services and Teacher licensure, said that it has been established that these rules are legal to implement and are considered good standards by Deans of Education around the country. These standards have been developed, as required by statute, in collaboration with superintendents, the Commission on Higher Education, and institutions of higher education that offer principal preparation programs.
That statute requires us to adopt the standards by January 1, 2003. The emergency rules that we are adopting tomorrow allow us to comply and also for CCHE to make the appropriate changes in their programs for next year. We could have a hearing in December and do the final adoption in January.
A number of small changes were discussed to the proposed rules. One, urged by Orr, was to change "representative democracy" to "democratic republic." I objected and reminded the Board of a similar discussion that took place several years ago when the Board adopted the Social Studies standards and my predecessor, Patti Johnson, insisted that our county is not a democracy. The majority wanted to make a change, and the compromise was to say "representative democratic republic." [I don't like the compromise language and insist that "representative democracy" is good enough.]
Copyright © 2001-2007 Evie Hudak - All Rights Reserved