Who Is In Charge

Scores go up, scores go down

The state’s 2010 test scores and growth data once again show the familiar pattern of some improvements and some declines, and the persistence of achievement gaps, according to 2010 test results released by the Colorado Department of Education.

Combined figures for all grades showed 68 percent of Colorado students proficient or advanced in reading in 2010, the same percentage as in the prior two years. In writing, 53 percent were proficient, down two percentage points from last year and the same as 2008. In math, 55 percent were proficient or higher, the same as 2009 and two points higher than in 2008. Those percentages have remained in the same narrow range for a decade.

Colorado Department of Education graphic

“Scores overall were flat,” was how Assistant Education Commission Jo O’Brien summed up the results at a news conference Tuesday. “Some school districts had a banner year, and other didn’t do as well.”

“The expectation was that there’d be more of an uptick … it was not expected to see it flat,” O’Brien added, noting that the results will give educators something to think about. She also said “we were not pleased” with a general decline in writing test scores. Asked to speculate on why those scores dropped, O’Brien said she had a “hunch” that prolonged legislative discussion last spring about eliminating the writing tests may have sent the wrong signal to schools.

The results highlight the challenges Colorado faces in meeting the goals included in its application for federal Race to the Top dollars.

Among other improvements in achievement by state students, Colorado’s application sets goals of 95 percent of students proficient or above in reading and 85 percent in math by 2020, if the state wins R2T.

Without R2T, the state estimates 2020 proficiency levels at 73.8 percent in reading and 61.5 percent in math.

State policy and law, and educational fashion, have shifted toward a greater emphasis on student growth toward proficiency over time.

A key metric contained in the Colorado Growth Model is the percentage of who scored unsatisfactory or partially proficient but whose growth is on track to move into proficient (“catch up”) within three years or by 10th grade, whichever comes first.

Colorado Department of Education graph

That key stat also is flat this year. Of those students, 35 percent are on track to catch up in reading, 24 percent in writing and 13 percent in math. Statewide, there are 143,978 students who scored unsatisfactory or partially proficient in reading, 217,291 in writing and 209,514 in math.

Bill Bonk, who works on growth issues for the Department of Education, said, “We face great challenge in this state” in helping such students catch up.

Of particular concern are the students who score unsatisfactory, the lowest level. This year, there are 47,054 of those in reading, 27,527 in writing and 79,606 in math.

“More than 85 percent of students who need to catch up don’t appear to be doing so,” Bonk said. “The actions taken thus far have not been effective enough.”

Asked what the state should be doing, Bonk said, “Part of the reason for having a growth model is to shine a light” on the problem. “It doesn’t show the path ahead.”

The model also calculates “keep up” and “move up” statuses for students who score proficient or advanced. Keep up statistics measure students whose growth levels are expected to maintain them at proficient or advanced levels. Move up includes students whose growth is expected to move them from proficient to advanced. (See these PDF slides for more details on the Colorado Growth model and 2010 results.)

Here are highlights of the 2010 results for CSAP achivement scores.

Reading (grades 3-10)

The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced ranged from a high of 70 percent in grade 3 to 66 percent in grades 4 and 10.

Compared to 2009 results, the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced grew in grades 4, 7 and 8; declined in grades 3 and 10, and stayed the same in grades 5, 6 and 9.

Over the six years from 2005 to 2010, the percentage of proficient or advanced students improved in grades 6, 7, 8 and 9; declined in grade 3 and remained the same in grades 5 and 10.

Writing (grades 3-10)

Seventh graders had the highest percentage scoring proficient or advanced at 58 percent. The 10th grade was low at 47 percent.

Compared to 2009, the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced declined in every grade except 8, which improved by two percentage points. From 2005-2010, the percentage declined in grades 3, 4, 6, 9 and 1o, rose in grades 7 and 8 and remained the same from grade 5.

Math (grades 3-10)

The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced showed a steady decline as students get older, going from 71 percent in the 3rd grade to 30 percent in the 10th.

The percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced increased compared to 2009 in grades 3, 5, 8 and 9; declined in grades 6 and 7 and stayed the same in grades 4 and 10. Over the period starting in 2005, only grades 4, 6 and 8 showed improvement in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced. Compared to 2009, the 2010 scores show improvement in grade 5 and declines in grades 8 and 10.

Science (grades 5, 8 and 10)

Because of a change in standards, scores from 2008, 2009 and 2010 can’t be compared to those from 2007 and before.

The percentages proficient or advanced were 47 in 5th grade, 48 in 8th grade and 47 in 10th grade.

The Department of Education also compared results by ethnic group, gender, Title I and IEP status, free and reduced lunch eligibility and English language proficiency. Here’s a summary of those findings:


Bill Bonk of CDE discusses growth statistics at Aug. 10 news conference. Assistant Commissioner Jo O'Brien is to his left.

Hispanics and Blacks improved their percentages in the proficient and advanced categories for reading in more grades, six, than all other groups. Their performance declined in only two grades, 3rd and 10th.

In math, Black students improved in the most grades – six (3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10) with Hispanics and Native Americans both improving in five grades (Hispanics 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10; Native Americans 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10). Whites improved in four grades (3, 5, 8, and 9).

“Regardless of the improvement for minority groups, it should be noted that a significant gap between the performance of white and minority students persists across most tests,” the CDE summary noted.


A higher percentage of girls than boys are proficient or advanced in reading and writing at every grade level. Boys do better in math in all but a few grades, and the percentages decline for both genders as students get older.

Title I students and students with individual education plans

The percentage of Title I students scoring proficient or advanced increased on 17 of the 31 assessments administered.

The percentage of students on individual education plans (IEP) in the proficient and advanced categories decreased on 20 of the 31 tests.

Free and reduced-price lunch students

Students defined as eligible for free-or-reduced price lunch increased their percentages in the proficient and advanced categories on 16 of 27 English language tests administered in 2010.

“Regardless of the improvement for students of poverty, it should be noted that a significant gap between the performance of students on free or reduced price lunch and their non-eligible for free/reduced price lunch peers persists,” the CDE summary also noted.

English language learners

Students defined as Fluent English Proficient (FEP) increased their percentages in proficient and advanced on 21 of 27 English language tests. Students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) improved on nine of 27 tests, as did students who are not learning English.

ACT results

All Colorado 11th-graders are required to take the ACT tests for data purposes, but scores have no bearing on high school graduations.

Compared to 2009, the 2010 statewide results showed slight decreases in all content areas except English (18.6), which remained the same. Reading (down to 19.6 from 20.1) showed the largest decrease. The average 2010 composite score (19.4) was down compared to the average composite score (19.6) for 2009.

This year’s results are the second-to-the-last under the current CSAP program, which started in 1997 with just two tests. Students will take regular CSAP tests next spring based on the old state Model Content Standards. In 2012 and 2013, students will take CSAPs modified to reflect the combination state standards and Common Core standards for language arts and math, which have been adopted by the State Board of Education.

Brand-new tests are expected to debut in the spring of 2014. It seems increasingly likely those new tests will be one of the multi-state common assessment programs now under development, rather than a Colorado-only set of tests.

But parents will see one key change this year.

The familiar SARs (school accountability reports), distributed every December, have been phased out and are being replaced this December by what are called school and district “performance frameworks.”

Those frameworks consider not only CSAP results but also growth, achievement gaps, ACT scores, graduation rates and dropout rates in rating schools.

All of that information about schools and districts will be available on CDE’s data portal, SchoolView.org, which was launched last year. Printed copies of individual school data also will be available to parents who want it. (The 2010 CSAP and growth data already has been added to SchoolView, so parents and citizens can see that now for individual schools and districts.)

The expanded data set also is the basis for the state’s new six-level system of accrediting school districts and determining levels of state intervention in struggling districts. (See this CDE document for details on performance frameworks, the accreditation system and SchoolView.)

This year’s release was low-key compared to 2009’s announcement, which featured Gov. Bill Ritter, Lt. Gov. Barbara O’Brien, education Commissioner Dwight Jones, other CDE officials and a large number of teachers and education officials from around the state.

On Tuesday, O’Brien, Bonk and communications director Mark Stevens briefed a small group of reporters and others on the results. The lieutenant governor and Jones were in Washington Tuesday presenting Colorado’s R2T bid to U.S. Department of Education reviewers. Ritter’s major public event of the day was announcement of an agreement with energy companies to protect wildlife from the impacts of energy development.

Some 1.6 million CSAP tests (there are 31 different tests) were given to about 465,000 Colorado students this year.

Who Is In Charge

Indianapolis Public Schools board gives superintendent Ferebee raise, bonus

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy
Lewis Ferebee

Indianapolis Public Schools Superintendent Lewis Ferebee is getting a $4,701 raise and a bonus of $28,000.

The board voted unanimously to approve both. The raise is a 2.24 percent salary increase. It is retroactive to July 1, 2017. Ferebee’s total pay this year, including the bonus, retirement contributions and a stipend for a car, will be $286,769. Even though the bonus was paid this year, it is based on his performance last school year.

The board approved a new contract Tuesday that includes a raise for teachers.

The bonus is 80 percent of the total — $35,000 — he could have received under his contract. It is based on goals agreed to by the superintendent and the board.

These are performance criteria used to determine the superintendent’s bonus are below:

Student recruitment

How common is it for districts to share student contact info with charter schools? Here’s what we know.

PHOTO: Laura Faith Kebede
Staff members of Green Dot Public Schools canvass a neighborhood near Kirby Middle School in the summer of 2016 before reopening the Memphis school as a charter.

As charter schools emerge alongside local school districts across the nation, student addresses have become a key turf war.

Charter schools have succeeded in filling their classes with and without access to student contact information. But their operators frequently argue that they have a right to such information, which they say is vital to their recruitment efforts and gives families equal access to different schools in their area.

Disputes are underway right now in at least two places: In Tennessee, school boards in Nashville and Memphis are defying a new state law that requires districts to hand over such information to charters that request it. A New York City parent recently filed a formal complaint accusing the city of sharing her information improperly with local charter schools.

How do other cities handle the issue? According to officials from a range of school districts, some share student information freely with charters while others guard it fiercely.

Some districts explicitly do not share student information with charter schools. This includes Detroit, where the schools chief is waging an open war with the charter sector for students; Washington, D.C., where the two school sectors coexist more peacefully; and Los Angeles.

Others have clear rules for student information sharing. Denver, for example, set parameters for what information the district will hand over to charter schools in a formal collaboration agreement — one that Memphis officials frequently cite as a model for one they are creating. Baltimore and Boston also share information, although Boston gives out only some of the personal details that district schools can access.

At least one city has carved out a compromise. In New York City, a third-party company provides mass mailings for charter schools, using contact information provided by the school district. Charter schools do not actually see that information and cannot use it for other purposes — although the provision hasn’t eliminated parent concerns about student privacy and fair recruitment practices there.

In Tennessee, the fight by the state’s two largest districts over the issue is nearing a boiling point. The state education department has already asked a judge to intervene in Nashville and is mulling whether to add the Memphis district to the court filing after the school board there voted to defy the state’s order to share information last month. Nashville’s court hearing is Nov. 28.

The conflict feels high-stakes to some. In Memphis, both local and state districts struggle with enrolling enough students. Most schools in the state-run Achievement School District have lost enrollment this year, and the local district, Shelby County Schools, saw a slight increase in enrollment this year after years of freefall.

Still, some charter leaders wonder why schools can’t get along without the information. One Memphis charter operator said his school fills its classes through word of mouth, Facebook ads, and signs in surrounding neighborhoods.

“We’re fully enrolled just through that,” said the leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect his relationship with the state and local districts. “It’s a non-argument for me.”

A spokeswoman for Green Dot Public Schools, the state-managed charter school whose request for student information started the legal fight in Memphis, said schools in the Achievement School District should receive student contact information because they are supposed to serve students within specific neighborhood boundaries.

“At the end of the day, parents should have the information they need to go to their neighborhood school,” said the spokeswoman, Cynara Lilly. “They deserve to know it’s open.”