left behind

What Colorado’s numbers tell us — and don’t tell us — about who needs remedial work in college

D'Evelyn School (Wikipedia)

It’s understandable if you missed the Colorado Department of Higher Education’s latest report on a key measure of how well public high school graduates are prepared for college.

The state’s annual report on remediation rates dropped the Friday afternoon before Memorial Day weekend, when folks were thinking more about backyard barbecues than longitudinal trends.

The report warrants attention, however. As Colorado’s state tests have changed over the past decade — making it more difficult to track progress — the remediation report provides consistent data over time.

Not only that, but remediation rates are among the most important measures of how well schools are preparing kids for post-secondary education. This is where falling behind literally costs students — remedial coursework in college isn’t free, and student don’t earn credit for it.

Sure, the remediation data has limitations. The state tracks only students who enroll in Colorado public colleges and universities, meaning students who leave the state or attend private universities in Colorado are not counted.

This year’s report, looking at remediation rates for the high school class of 2014, found that 35.4 percent of graduates needed remedial coursework, up from 34.2 percent the previous year. It was a disappointing step backward following years of positive movement.

The report also underscored longstanding racial disparities. At two-year institutions, 82 percent of black students and almost 70 percent of Hispanic students required remediation. The figures for those racial groups at four-year schools were 52.5 percent and 39 percent, respectively.

Here are a few takeaways from this year’s report, which you can read here:

School-level remediation data is incomplete and district-level numbers are nonexistent.

The state’s data set has plenty of blank spaces. No remediation stats are made public for about 200 high schools. That’s because if a cohort of students numbers 16 or below, state officials obscure that data out of concern that students might be personally identifiable.

Schools without enough data to report include many small schools and alternative schools. (The overall statewide remediation rate does take in students from all schools, including these.)

Of schools with large enough cohorts to be included in the report, Greeley’s Jefferson High School, an alternative school, had the highest remediation rate — 88 percent. As school leaders told The Greeley Tribune, the five-year-old high school is showing improvement.

Six of the 10 schools with the highest remediation rates are in Denver Public Schools, which serves a high proportion of students living in poverty and is the state’s largest school district:

 

DPS calculates remediation rates differently than the state.

For one, the district includes all high school graduates and completers in its calculations — starting with measuring where students are at while they are still in high school — not just those who head off to college.

The state defines students as needing remediation based on scores on tools such as the ACT, SAT or Accuplacer; if they enroll in a remedial course; or if they enroll in a Supplemental Academic Instruction Course while enrolled in a related 100-level course.

Along with some measures used by the state, the district relies on other factors the state doesn’t consider, including grades students get in low-level college courses, as well as Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate scores. As a result, under the DPS definition, fewer students are likely to be identified as needing remedial work.

In a February report to the school board, DPS reported that its district-wide remediation rate had declined from 62 percent for the class of 2014 to 50 percent for the class of 2015.

“We know we have made gains in certain areas,” said Kim Poast, executive director of the district’s Office of College and Career Readiness. “There is still work to do compared to the rest of the state.”

Because the state conceals some schools’ numbers to address privacy concerns, the Colorado Department of Higher Education does not release district-level remediation data, leaving no way of knowing how Colorado school districts compare.

Michael Vente, a research and policy officer/analyst with the State Department of Higher Education, acknowledged this is a key missing piece of information. He said the department plans more detailed discussions of its policy of suppressing data, and in the future would like to provide school districts better information on their performance.

One school in Jefferson County had a remediation rate of 0 percent. No other school in Colorado can make that claim. But should it come with an asterisk?

As principal of D’Evelyn Junior Senior High School, Anthony Edwards has plenty to be proud of.

For 12 years running, the school has had the highest ACT test scores among public, non-charter schools in Colorado. Nearly every D’Evelyn graduate enrolls in college.

“We need engagement from everyone,” Edwards said in explaining the school’s success. “Teachers need to be hardworking, parents need to value and support the school, and students have to be engaged. It takes a team to get the results we’ve been getting.”

This year, D’Evelyn stands alone as the only Colorado high school in the state’s remediation report with a 0 percent remediation rates:

 

As a Jeffco “option school,” students who want to attend must enter a lottery (those who attend a feeder school, Dennison Elementary, have a preference). There’s a liberal arts curriculum, a dress code and a closed campus. Students are required to show courtesy and respect for high moral and ethical standards, and patriotism is emphasized.

A statement explaining the school’s philosophy describes a program “based on the belief that all students, not just an elite group, should be held to rigorous academic and behavioral standards, and that all students can achieve in a challenging program.”

D’Evelyn’s student makeup does not, however, represent the increasing diversity of Jefferson County, especially socioeconomically.

Last school year, about 6 percent of D’Evelyn students qualified for a government-subsidized lunch, a proxy for poverty, state data shows. About 31 percent of Jeffco students do. The free and reduced- price lunch population of Dennison Elementary is similarly low.

According to state figures, about 53 percent of students who qualify for free and reduced-priced lunches need remediation, while 31 percent of those who don’t qualify need remediation.

Geography is one reason for D’Evelyn’s school makeup. The school is in the wealthier southwest suburbs. Transportation is likely one hurdle for low-income families, said Edwards, who previously worked at Jefferson High School, which has a high number of poor students.

Edwards was quick to say that D’Evelyn does not prescreen its students, a claim from those skeptical about its impressive track record. The school does no marketing or recruitment.

A couple of years ago, Jeffco staff asked whether the school would participate in an event showcasing options in the district. Edwards said the school chose not to send a representative.

Asked whether the school’s small number of students living in poverty is a concern, Edwards said he expects the ranks of those students to grow as the county changes. The school, he said, has taken steps to prepare, including creating a peer mentoring program and tutoring.

“Some of the discussions we’ve had is, ‘How do we maintain our expectations as our populations and demographics switch?’” he said.

As is the case with traditional district-run schools, charter schools run the spectrum.

DSST, the Denver-grown charter network that is poised for a big expansion, had the lowest remediation rates in the city and the 13th lowest in the state: about 15 percent, according to the state report. That falls short of the state’s DSST numbers for the class of 2013 (7.5 percent) and 2012 (11 percent).

More striking were the poor results for KIPP, part of a national network of high-performing charter schools founded in the mid-1990s by two Teach for America corps members. State data showed 70 percent of 2014 KIPP Denver Collegiate High School graduates (or 21 of 30 students) required remediation.

Kimberlee Sia
Kimberlee Sia

Kimberlee Sia, executive director of KIPP Colorado Schools, said school officials were taken aback by the dip because of progress in other measures such as dropout, graduation and its internal remediation rates, which like DPS numbers are calculated differently.

Some KIPP graduates — including those who enrolled in the Community College of Denver — and others enrolled in technical colleges weren’t included in the state tally, Sia said.

KIPP has taken a number of steps to address remediation rates, she said, including tutoring, a greater focus on citing evidence in writing and interim assessments starting in ninth grade.

Schools under the state Charter School Institute — which has authority over charter schools not overseen by districts — could be found on both ends of the remediation spectrum.

Colorado Springs Early Colleges’ remediation rate was just 8 percent – the fifth best rate in the state. The school has a free-and-reduced-price-lunch student population of about 30 percent. Pinnacle Charter School, which has been operating nearly two decades in north Denver, had a rate of 67 percent. About 60 percent of students there qualify for subsidized lunches.

schools of the future

What does the ‘future of work’ mean for schools? Big claims leave educators with more questions than answers

PHOTO: Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images

“It’s time to update our schools so they work better for today’s students,” Stacey Childress, the head of NewSchools Venture Fund, said earlier this month at the organization’s annual summit — a who’s who of charter school leaders, their funders, their advocates, and others promoting school choice or education technology.

“With the twin forces of automation and globalization just absolutely changing the very nature of opportunity and work, this is more important than ever.”

It’s a message that’s hard to miss.

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently told the Wall Street Journal that schools need to change because by the time current kindergarteners reach the job market, 65 percent of jobs will be newly invented. The XQ Initiative to reinvent high school claims that the “jobs of tomorrow will look totally different than those of today or the recent past.” A special report in Education Week on the future of work says that “technological change, globalization, and climate instability are happening at an accelerating pace all across the world.”

These warnings of dramatic change are increasingly being used to promote advocates’ favored solutions for improving schools, and the results are trickling down into real classrooms — not just through the expansion of established career and technical education programs, for example, but with calls to upend traditional schooling altogether.

Dig into these claims about our changing economy, though, and you end up knee-deep in mixed messages and muddled statistics. While there is good reason to think that America’s job market will look different in the years to come, some of the data being used to make that point in the education world is overstated or misleading.

That’s leaving educators and policymakers wondering how best to prepare students, especially since one commonly promoted strategy, expanding the use of technology in schools, may be promising but is largely unproven as a way to improve learning.

Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an education economist at Northwestern University, agrees the economy is evolving and schools need to pay attention. But calls to respond with dramatic overhauls are worrying, too.

“The risk of doing it wrong and really making a disaster is bigger,” she said.

Some researchers suggest substantial change in the economy is likely in the near future.

Leaders trying to understand the connection between education and the workforce often turn to two reports that model the future economy: a 2013 study out of Oxford — which found that 47 percent of U.S. employment was at risk of being automated out of existence at some point — and a more recent report by the consulting firm McKinsey.

Michael Chui, one of the authors of the McKinsey report, argues that there’s a good chance that the American economy will face substantial change.

“Roughly 50 percent of the time people are at work, they’re doing activities which theoretically could be automated by adapting currently demonstrated technology,” Chui told attendees at the conference hosted by NewSchools Venture Fund, which funds other education organizations. “These technologies will affect everyone.”

Another recent study, by Harvard economist David Deming, found that the skills employers prioritized had changed somewhat in the 2000s to place greater emphasis on social skills, though mathematical skills were still highly valued.

“Our best guess is that what people are going to be good at, that robots aren’t good at, are these non-cognitive skills: caring for people, getting along,” said Schanzenbach.

There are a number of reasons to temper those predictions, though.

Those findings sound pretty intimidating. But the fine print of some of these studies suggest their conclusions are somewhat less clear.

Both the McKinsey and Oxford statistics refer to jobs or tasks that could, in theory, be automated — neither predicts that they all necessarily will be. “We make no attempt to estimate how many jobs will actually be automated,” write the Oxford researchers, pointing out that many factors affect whether a technology is adopted, including cost and government regulation.

The McKinsey report predicts that by 2030, 23 percent of current work hours will be automated, far from the 50 percent theoretical figure, which Chui said likely won’t happen “any time soon.”

There’s another reason to think the pace of oncoming change may be overstated. Although it doesn’t get much attention in education circles, economists are increasingly worried about declining, not rising, rates of productivity and innovation, referred to as “economic dynamism.” There have been fewer people moving between states or switching jobs, fewer start-ups, and generally sluggish economic growth compared to before the Great Recession.

Meanwhile, predictions by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics for professions poised to add the most new jobs between 2016 and 2026 include software engineers but also personal-care aides, fast food cooks, nurses, janitors, and waiters. Those aren’t the positions that are typically the focus of conversations about the future of work.

Where that leaves teachers and schools is not entirely clear, and some say that ambiguity makes preparing students all the more challenging.

“I don’t think the onus is on schools to change to meet the needs of an economy that’s full of uncertainty,” said Nate Bowling, an AP Government teacher in Tacoma, Washington and a former state teacher of the year. “There should be a certain skill set that we endow students with … but [to prepare for specific jobs], what we really need is school–industry partnerships.”

Some frequently cited stats are misleading or wrong.

There’s another problem with the prevailing narrative about jobs of the future: some advocates have a habit of relying on bad data.

One statistic in particular has gained a lot of traction: more than half of the jobs of 2030 “have not even been invented yet.” This figure — or something like it — has been repeated over and over by DeVos, by North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, and by Childress and her organization, among many others.

They often cite specific reports, but when Chalkbeat previously tried to track down the basis of those numbers we hit a dead end. The claims rely on unexplained predictions by “experts” or even popular YouTube videos, but not specific analyses. (A spokesperson for NewSchools noted that Childress described this prediction as “aggressive” and said that the group relies on a number of different sources to inform its work, including its own interviews with teachers and students.)

The McKinsey report suggests, based on historical data, that just 8 or 9 percent of jobs in 2030 will be new occupations.

Here’s another common but misleading claim: that millennials are changing jobs at faster rates than the previous generation. In fact, more comprehensive federal data shows that the latest generation is actually switching jobs at a similar or slightly lower rate than previous ones did at the same age.

“If you want to generalize about philanthropy a bit, there’s this tendency time and again to make inflated or headline-grabbing claims about either what they’re going to accomplish or why there’s this enormous need for these investments,” said Sarah Reckhow, who studies education philanthropy at Michigan State University.

Some say the solution is to bring more tech into schools. Will that help?

Even if you accept the idea that the economy is about to see substantial change, what are schools supposed to do? And are schools able to do it?

Some of the ideas that get discussed include placing a greater emphasis on teaching social skills, changing accountability systems to focus less on standardized test results (and thus better measuring those social skills), and adding job training programs for careers with the most promising outlooks.

Another consistent one is to expand the use of technology in schools — to better engage students in traditional academics or to more directly prepare students for jobs requiring tech skills.

NewSchools, for instance, recently launched a future of work initiative that awards $50,000 to $150,000 grants to “entrepreneurs developing technology-enabled” products “that will help [students] succeed in the jobs of tomorrow.” The McKinsey report on future jobs suggests embracing “digital learning resources,” which it describes as more flexible than traditional classroom setups. Teaching computer science is also increasingly popular, backed by groups like Code.org that say students will benefit by gaining both computational thinking and career skills.

And some of the same groups or leaders emphasizing concerns about the future of work are also enthusiasts for technology-based “personalized learning.”

“Whether it’s technology as a subject matter to be taught more effectively in schools or technology as a medium for delivering education … I see it as a revolving set of arguments that tend to coalesce around the same underlying strategy and principle,” said Reckhow. “There can be really good reasons for [expanding technology], but it would be nice to have good data to support that.”

Although advocates can point to some encouraging evidence about the use of technology in schools, research is still limited and benefits are sometimes overstated.

“Whatever investments we make in ed tech tools, we want to be very thoughtful about how these tools are implemented in the classroom and whether or not they make teachers lives easier versus harder,” said NewSchools managing partner Tonika Cheek Clayton.

NewSchools sees another potential use for technology in helping students learn about the workforce.

“Ed tech can provide a platform and an opportunity for students to connect with professionals that are outside of their school environment,” Clayton said.

A recent study found mixed evidence that this sort of approach could work. A partially virtual career mentorship program in New York City slightly improved 10th grade students’ self-reported critical thinking and college aspirations, but it had no effect on students’ grades, attendance, credits earned, or their likelihood of doing things like studying for the ACT or visiting a college.

Childress of NewSchools argues that innovation means trying new things even when there is limited evidence. “For those of us who are working towards steady improvement, [we should] resist saying that innovators shouldn’t try anything that isn’t already proven,” she said at this month’s summit. NewSchools also promotes broader ideas like improving access to college and career counseling and using “experiential learning” to connect school and work.

Bowling says certain basics are still overlooked in conversations about preparing students for the future: proposals to increase school funding to pay for things like highly qualified teachers, more guidance counselors, or the hardware that makes technology programs viable.

“We want students to learn computer science,” he said. “OK – who’s literate in computer science [and] is going to teach computer science for the salary that we pay K-12 teachers in the United States right now?”

Accolade

In his last year as governor, Tennessee’s Haslam picked for national education award

PHOTO: TN.gov
Gov. Bill Haslam celebrates in 2016 after Tennessee outpaced almost all other states in gains on a science exam administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The outgoing Republican governor was named Tuesday as the 2018 recipient of the James Bryant Conant Award, a national honor recognizing outstanding individual contributions to American education.

Gov. Bill Haslam will receive one of the nation’s most prestigious education honors for his policy work to expand college access for Tennessee students and prepare them for the workforce.

The Republican governor, who will finish eight years in office next January, is the 2018 recipient of the James Bryant Conant Award, which recognizes outstanding individual contributions to American education.

Haslam is scheduled to accept the award next month in Washington, D.C., during the national forum of the Education Commission of the States, a nonpartisan group that helps governors, legislators, and other state officials develop education policies.

Announcing its decision on Tuesday, the commission cited Haslam’s leadership to help students be job-ready through his Drive to 55 initiative. The program aims to increase the number of Tennesseans with degrees or credentials after high school to 55 percent by 2025.

Haslam also spearheaded Tennessee Promise and Tennessee Reconnect, two college scholarship programs that offer two years of tuition-free education to high school graduates and adults. After Tennessee pioneered those efforts, 18 states created similar programs.

In addition, Haslam’s home state has seen academic gains in its K-12 schools since he became governor in 2011. The Republican built on the plan he inherited from his predecessor, Democrat Phil Bredesen, after the state won a $500 million federal Race to the Top award. From 2011 to 2016, Tennessee was among the fastest improving states in America on the Nation’s Report Card. And last school year, the state’s high school graduation rate rose to a record-high 89 percent.

PHOTO: TN.Gov
Gov. Bill Haslam visits with Rutherford County students at Central Magnet School in Murfreesboro in 2017.

“Gov. Haslam’s unwavering commitment to educational attainment — and providing all students with the opportunity for a quality postsecondary education — is admirable,” said Jeremy Anderson, the commission’s president. “The Drive to 55 and programs such as Tennessee Promise and Tennessee Reconnect exemplify his visionary leadership and set the bar for excellence in education around the country.”

The award is named for a co-founder of the Education Commission of the States.

The most recent Tennessean to receive the honor was William Sanders, the statistician and researcher who developed Tennessee’s system known as TVAAS for evaluating teachers and schools. Sanders accepted the award in 2015.

Other past recipients include former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, American educator and Memphis native E.D. Hirsch, children’s television icon Fred Rogers, Children’s Defense Fund founder Marian Wright Edelman, and U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, who is also a former Tennessee governor and U.S. education secretary.