ABCs of the SPF

Your guide to understanding Denver Public Schools’ color-coded school rating system

Fifth-graders at Denver's McMeen Elementary School (Kathryn Scott Osler/The Denver Post).

Denver Public Schools released its annual school ratings Thursday.

Known as the School Performance Framework, or SPF, the district’s rating system assigns each school a color that’s not unlike a letter grade. But instead of A through F, schools are rated from blue (the highest rating) to red (the lowest rating).

Want to know more about how it works and why it matters?

DPS has a website devoted to the School Performance Framework that answers many common questions. We’ve also written a guide with all you need to know about this year’s ratings:

How was my school rated?

Schools are awarded points based on a number of factors and those points are combined to come up with a final score. The factors differ slightly from elementary to middle and high school. For instance, elementary schools are judged partly on how many kindergarteners are reading at grade-level, while high schools are rated in part on how many graduates need — or, preferably, don’t need — remedial classes in college.

But there are several factors on which all schools are evaluated. They include:

Academic Growth: How much students’ scores on state standardized tests improved compared to the scores of students across the state who started at a similar academic level.

Academic Proficiency: The percentage of students who met or exceeded expectations on state tests — in other words, who scored at grade level. This factor is often referred to as “status.”

Enrollment Rates: How many students re-enroll at a school year to year.

Parent Satisfaction: How many parents are satisfied with a school, as measured by a survey.

My school was rated (your color here). What does that mean?

Each school is assigned a color based on its final score. There are five colors on DPS’s scale.

Blue: Distinguished.
Green: Meets Expectations.
Yellow: Accredited on Watch.
Orange: Accredited on Priority Watch.
Red: Accredited on Probation.

Are there consequences connected to a school’s rating?

Yes. And not all of them are necessarily bad.

For instance, DPS doles out extra funding, sometimes referred to as “tiered supports,” to low-rated schools in an effort to boost achievement.

Last school year, 35 schools shared just shy of $14 million in DPS dollars, in addition to federal grant money, according to a presentation given by district staff to the school board in March. Those schools got a total of $1,674 more per pupil, according to the presentation.

However, if schools continue to falter even after getting help, they face the possibility of closure.

This fall, the district will use a new policy to determine which schools should be “restarted,” or closed and replaced. The policy, called the School Performance Compact, calls for using three criteria to identify persistently low-performing schools. The first is whether a school ranks in the bottom 5 percent of all DPS schools based on multiple years of color-coded school ratings.

The ratings also have consequences for teacher pay under DPS’s incentive-based system.

The last time DPS rated schools was in 2014. Why were there no ratings last year?

There were no ratings last year because the state switched to a new set of standardized tests in math and English. The tests are known as PARCC, and Colorado students have now taken them twice: first in the spring of 2015 and again in the spring of 2016.

You may also hear them called CMAS, which refers to the entire bundle of tests that Colorado students take, including science and social studies tests first taken by kids in 2014.

Because 2015 was the first year DPS students took PARCC, the district was unable to calculate students’ academic growth, which requires at least two years’ worth of test scores and is a big part of a school’s rating. As Superintendent Tom Boasberg likes to say, “What’s most important is not where you start, but how much you grow.”

In the absence of growth data, the district decided to forgo rating schools last year.

I heard DPS changed the way it calculates its ratings this year. Is that true?

Yes. In fact, DPS changed the calculation in two ways.

The first is that the district added additional factors. One example: The SPF will now include multiple measures of how well a school is teaching literacy to young children, including how much progress students designated as “significantly below grade level” are making.

This year’s ratings will also include a factor based on equity. Schools will be more explicitly evaluated on how well they’re serving students of color, for instance. However, because the equity factor is new this year, it won’t count toward a school’s overall rating.

The second way DPS changed the calculation was last-minute. Last week, district officials decided to lower the bar on one key measure after hearing concerns from school leaders.

The details are somewhat complicated. Because the new PARCC tests are more rigorous than the old state tests, fewer students across Colorado — and in DPS — met or exceeded expectations on the tests. But until last week, DPS wasn’t planning to lower the percentage of students who’d have to meet that bar for a school to receive a high rating.

District officials changed their minds, however, when they saw how the ratings shook out.

How much stock should families put into these ratings? How worried should I be if my child’s school dropped a color rating or two?

District officials are telling families to exercise caution when reading into this year’s ratings. In fact, at a recent school board meeting, some board members suggested printing the word “CAUTION” on top of a school’s color rating.

There are a couple of reasons why, officials said. One of the biggest is that because last year was just the second year Colorado students took PARCC, only one year of growth data is available. In the past, DPS has used two years’ worth of growth data to calculate schools’ ratings in order to smooth out one-time anomalies that can cause scores to swing up or down.

Having just one year of data means schools this year are likely to see bigger swings in their ratings, either for better or worse, Boasberg said at that board meeting.

“As we talk to parents and community members, we say, ‘Yes, the SPF is important,’” he said. “But the most important thing is to go visit a school, talk to parents, talk to students.

“No system (is) ever going to be perfect,” he added, referring to the district’s ratings. “The way we do the SPF is more comprehensive and reliable than anything we’ve seen out there, nationally or statewide. People do care deeply about the SPF. It does tell an important story. But it’s important that we tell that with humility and we tell that with caution.”

enrollment zones

Efforts to better integrate Denver middle schools proving tough, analysis finds

PHOTO: Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post
Students at Skinner Middle School in 2011, before the enrollment zone was put in place.

Enlarging Denver’s middle school boundaries has not decreased school segregation as much as hoped, according to a new district analysis.

Denver Public Schools created its first “enrollment zone” six years ago. The idea was that drawing bigger boundaries and asking students to choose from several schools within them would increase integration in a gentrifying city where many neighborhoods are segregated. The district now has 11 zones all over the city, from the far northeast to the southwest.

But district officials say they’ve found it difficult to fight against housing patterns.

“Despite drawing larger enrollment circles, several zones are still serving relatively homogenous neighborhoods,” Brian Eschbacher, the district’s director of planning and enrollment services, told school board members at a meeting Monday.

For example, just 2 percent of the students who live in the West Denver middle school enrollment zone are white, making racial integration nearly impossible. Eighty-eight percent of students qualify for subsidized lunches, which poses problems for economic integration, too.

The analysis uses a “segregation index” developed by a Duke University professor to examine whether grouping middle schools into enrollment zones made them more integrated.

The index looks at the demographic makeup of a geographic area — in this case, one of DPS’s seven middle school zones — and compares it to the makeup of the schools in the zone.

If the zone is home to 40 percent white students and 60 percent non-white students, the average white student in the zone would have to attend school with 60 percent non-white peers for the zone to be considered completely desegregated.

The index uses a scale from 0 (completely desegregated) to 1 (completely segregated). Eschbacher and his team applied the index to the schools in the zone before the zone was created and after to see if the ratings moved closer to 0, or completely desegregated — or whether, despite the district’s best efforts, they crept closer to 1.

In most cases, the movement in either direction was minimal.

In the Northwest Denver zone, where 64 percent of students are Latino and 30 percent are white, the racial segregation index went from .11 before the zone was put in place to .12 after.

The zone was created in 2015 and includes district-run Skinner Middle School, STRIVE Prep Sunnyside charter school, Denver Montessori Junior/Senior High School and Bryant Webster, a district-run dual-language school that serves preschool through eighth grade.

Students who live in zones are encouraged to fill out a choice form — the same one used by all DPS kids — listing their preferred schools. Those who don’t are assigned to one of the schools.

The district’s analysis notes that given its demographics, the northwest middle school zone has the potential for racial integration. But that’s not happening, at least in sixth grade.

Of the 98 white sixth-graders who live in the zone, 54 attend Skinner, which accepted all students who listed it as their first preference in the first round of the choice process this year. The other 44 attend a school outside the zone. Not a single white sixth-grader who lives in the zone goes to STRIVE or Bryant Webster.

That imbalance has also caused increasing economic segregation. Before the zone, the segregation index for students who receive free or reduced-price lunch, a proxy for poverty, was .09. It’s now .12, which the analysis attributes to the fact that higher-income families are choosing Skinner. Fifty-six percent of sixth-graders get subsidized lunches at Skinner, compared to 91 percent at Bryant Webster and 92 percent at STRIVE, according to the analysis.

The middle school zone that has come closest to the district’s goal is the zone for Greater Park Hill/Stapleton, which encompasses two very different neighborhoods. The growing Stapleton neighborhood is less racially diverse and more affluent than Park Hill.

Created in 2013 after the closure of low-performing Smiley Middle School, the zone includes five middle schools: Denver Discovery School, McAuliffe International School, William “Bill” Roberts, which serves students in preschool through eighth grade, and two links in the district’s biggest charter chain, DSST: Stapleton and DSST: Conservatory Green.

While the index for racial segregation has stayed steady at .16, the index for economic segregation has gone from .26 in 2012 to .13 in 2016, meaning it’s now more integrated.

While the average percentage of students in the zone who qualify for subsidized lunches dropped from 58 percent to 36 percent in that time as Stapleton continued to develop, Superintendent Tom Boasberg told the school board he considers the halving of the index a win.

“At a time when we saw greater concentrations of middle- and high-income families, our segregation index has gone down,” he said. “I think the enrollment zone made a real difference.”

However, some board members pointed out there could have been other factors at play. Since 2012, two schools in the zone — Smiley and Venture Prep Middle School — closed and two other schools — DSST: Conservatory Green and Denver Discovery School — opened.

Board members acknowledged the mixed success of the zones — and the challenges presented by a gentrifying city in which skyrocketing housing prices have pushed some low-income families out and concentrated many of those who remain in certain neighborhoods.

“I’m struggling with the pursuit of integrated schools and how we balance that with the realities of what our city looks like,” said board president Anne Rowe.

Board member Happy Haynes agreed. “We all had high hopes for using the zones, particularly in middle schools, to better balance, better integrate our schools,” she said.

“What isn’t within our power is the makeup of the neighborhood,” she added. “And so we’re struggling with how much effect we’ve actually had using the best strategies that we can.”

At the end of the discussion, Boasberg pledged the district would continue working on the issue, inviting board members’ thoughts on what DPS could do better or differently.

spotlighting disparities

Which Denver schools are falling short on the school district’s new equity rating?

PHOTO: Karl Gehring/Denver Post
A Lincoln Elementary student practices her writing skills in this 2008 file photo. Lincoln Elementary got a high equity rating.

Two-dozen Denver schools this year earned the lowest possible score on a new school district measure meant to gauge how well schools are educating traditionally underserved students.

The schools run the gamut from long-standing traditional schools to newer charter schools, from schools that serve a homogenous student population to those that are more integrated, and from highly rated schools to some of Denver Public Schools’ most struggling.

The new measure — called the equity indicator — is part of DPS’s color-coded school rating system. It takes into account the test scores and graduation rates of students of color, low-income students, English language learners and special education students.

The district added it to shine an expository light on educational disparities, officials said.

“Our commitment is to make sure all of our kids succeed,” Superintendent Tom Boasberg said at a press conference last month when the scores were released. “It’s fundamentally a civil rights mission we have for the success of our kids.”

Schools this year got an equity rating along the same scale used for overall ratings: blue (the highest), green, yellow, orange or red (the lowest). (See individual school ratings in our database below.) Since it was new, the equity rating didn’t count toward the overall rating.

But next year, schools will have to score green or above on equity to be green or blue overall, Boasberg said. The district uses school ratings to help make several important decisions, including whether to close schools that are persistently low-performing.

Of the 82 DPS schools that were blue or green overall this year, 33 were below green on equity.

Most of those 33 schools were yellow on equity, just one color rating below where they’d need to be. But three schools that were green overall were red on equity: Park Hill Elementary, Denver Discovery School and Denver Montessori Junior High.

Katy Myers, principal of Denver Montessori, said the school is taking the rating seriously.

“The reason why people work here is to create an authentic Montessori adolescent program that reaches all students,” she said. “For DPS to help us know the students we’re reaching and the students we’re not reaching is great information for us.”

HOW IS THE RATING CALCULATED?
There are several factors that go into a school’s equity rating. They include:
  • The percentages of low-income students, English language learners and students of color who met or exceeded expectations on state standardized tests. The state tests include the English and math PARCC tests, plus state science tests.
  • How much academic growth low-income students, English language learners and students of color showed on state tests. Academic growth measures how much students learn year to year.
  • The gaps between how students in those groups and students not in those groups did.
  • The performance and growth of a school’s special education students on state tests compared to the performance and growth of students with disabilities statewide.
  • The percentage of English language learners considered “on track” toward English language proficiency as measured by a test called ACCESS. And whether English language learners are showing the amount of academic growth the district expects.
  • For high schools, the graduation rates for English language learners, low-income students and students of color. And how the graduation rate for a school’s special education students compares to the statewide graduation rate for special education students.

Opened four years ago, the school serves as the secondary school for Denver’s four Montessori elementaries. Last year, 70 percent of students were kids of color, 44 percent were low-income, 19 percent were English language learners and 13 percent were special education students.

In the wake of the rating, Myers said the school is working on improving “the basics: pre-teaching, re-teaching and checks for understanding. If there’s more teaching that needs to happen, that’s easy for us to do within our schedule.”

Ken Burdette, principal at Park Hill Elementary, said that while he agrees DPS should focus on equity, he’s worried his school’s red rating doesn’t paint an accurate picture. For example, he said, although white students are making faster academic progress than students of color at Park Hill, both groups are outpacing district averages on state tests.

“All students are learning,” Burdette said. “They’re not all learning at the same rate.”

Last year, 37 percent of Park Hill students were kids of color, 24 percent were low-income, 5 percent were English language learners and 10 percent were special education students.

Districtwide, students with more privilege are making faster progress on state tests than those from disadvantaged backgrounds — which has widened so-called achievement gaps. Boasberg said the district’s goal “is that everyone gains.”

“We want to be intentional about being clear where we are making progress and where we’re not making the progress we need to,” he said, “and provide schools with the support they need to accelerate across the community our work in closing the gaps.”

Successes and challenges

Demographics play a role in what a school’s equity rating means.

Some of the 24 schools that were red on equity serve a fairly homogenous student population. (That number does not include alternative or early education schools.) West Leadership Academy, one of several smaller high schools located in the former West High, is an example. Last year, 97 percent of students were low-income, 98 percent were students of color and 79 percent were English language learners.

In cases like that, Boasberg said, the school may not have enough affluent, white, native English speakers to make comparisons. Thus the equity rating will be less a measure of a school’s achievement gaps and more a measure of students’ raw test scores and growth.

In schools with more integrated student populations, the equity rating takes those gaps into account. In the past, a school where affluent students were doing well but low-income students were not might still get a good overall rating because the high scores of the affluent students would mask the lower scores of the students living in poverty, Boasberg said.

Requiring schools to be at least green on equity in order to be blue or green overall will make it impossible to hide those disparities any longer, he said.

The Downtown Denver Expeditionary School, a four-year-old elementary charter school located in the district’s headquarters, is more integrated than many DPS schools. Last year, 30 percent of students were low-income, 38 percent were students of color, 4 percent were English language learners and 8 percent were special education students.

While the school earned a yellow rating overall this year, it was red on equity.

Executive Director Scott Mengel said his staff was “totally disappointed” by the rating. But even before it came out, he said the school was working to address challenges such as a weakness in math by creating a team of specialists to work with small groups of students to boost performance. Teachers have also begun looking more closely at how certain groups of students — including low-income kids and students of color — are progressing, he said.

At the same time, Mengel is taking pride in another set of data: one that shows students report feeling engaged, supported and safe. Those are important factors for an expeditionary learning school, he said, which aims to grow students’ character alongside their academics.

“None of those are like an excuse in any way,” Mengel said. “But we believe those things are foundational to the long-term academic success kids will enjoy.”

Some of the district’s more integrated schools got high equity ratings, including Southmoor Elementary, High Tech Elementary, Lincoln Elementary and East High.

Thomas Jefferson High, which was green overall and green on equity, is among the most integrated: 52 percent of students last year were low-income, 61 percent were students of color, 25 percent were English language learners and 16 percent were special education students.

Principal Mike Christoff said the school has focused on mainstreaming special education students in regular classes. It also used grant money to increase the number of students enrolled in rigorous Advanced Placement classes — and separately got rid of tracking for freshman English classes so that all ninth-grade students take honors English.

In addition, Christoff said his staff makes sure every one of its English language learners is enrolled in an English language development course. The school also pays teachers to tutor after school four days a week and releases kids 40 minutes early on Wednesdays so they can get extra help without worrying about missing sports practice or the bus.

“We really try to push a family atmosphere, a family mentality and take care of each other, know each other and know about the lives of our kids,” Christoff said.

The meaning of equity

Most of the factors that go into the equity rating (see box) are not new. According to Boasberg, they’ve been part of a school’s overall rating since the district introduced its color-coded system a decade ago.

What’s new is that the district is pulling them out into their own separate category, he said. Even so, Boasberg emphasized that each factor will only count once toward a school’s overall rating.

Many other states and school districts factor achievement gaps and similar measures into school ratings, experts said. While they applauded Denver’s effort to highlight inequities, some criticized the district’s decision focus on test scores and graduation rates.

Including other factors — such as whether schools disproportionately suspend students of color, translate information for families into multiple languages or make college-level courses available to all students — would give a more accurate picture of equity, they said.

“Test scores have become a reality in our society,” said Philip Bernhardt, the department chair of secondary/K-12 education at Denver’s Metropolitan State University and a DPS parent. “But are there not five or six other nuanced ways we could think about equity?”

Boasberg said the district chose the factors it did to allow for fair comparisons across all types of schools. But that’s not to say other factors aren’t important, too, he said.

“There are dozens of different measures that are important,” Boasberg said. “But at the same time, our (rating system) is already quite comprehensive. … How many different data inputs do you put in (before) it becomes so complicated that it becomes difficult to comprehend?”