LPS "Obfuscate" Examples

"Obfuscate" (hide or veil the meaning by intentional distortion) examples are identified briefly along with hyperlink references to ICAN website pages and documents for additional information.  ICAN has concerns about such practices which affect credibility of some information from LPS sources.

Open meetings:

• Colorado Open Meetings Law:
  • Declaration of Policy (§24-6-401, C.R.S.): "It is declared to be a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret."
  • Meetings -- Open to Public (§24-6-402, C.R.S.):
    • The LPS Board of Education is a "local public body" as defined by subsection (1).
    • "All meetings of ... three or more members of any local public body ... at which any public business is discussed ... are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times" as required by subsection (2)(b).
    • "Any meetings at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance, shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public.... posted in a designated public place ... no less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting" as required by subsection (2)(c).
    • Criteria for executive sessions are limited by subsections (3) and (4); other "secret" meetings are prohibited by law.
    • "The secretary or clerk ... of each local public body ... [for] persons who ... have requested notification of all meetings ... shall provide reasonable advance notification of such meetings" as required by subsection (7).

• The LPS Board of Education has had apparent violations of the letter and spirit of the "Open Meetings Law" by failing to conduct the public's business in public:

  • Holding "meeting after the meeting":
    • Board "adjourns" posted meeting, and dismisses all LPS staff except the superintendent.
    • Board continues discussion on "calendar" and/or other LPS issues.
    • Board then pretends meeting is over, and waits for remaining public, if any, to leave.
    • Board finally has secret discussion on LPS issues.
  • Holding meetings that are not posted as required.
  • Having inaudible discussions among Board members.

Senate Bill 05-214 (K-12 school accountability) is a prime example of an attempt (supported by LPS and other "education establishment" officials) to sabotage current accountability systems.  The April 14, 2005 SB05-214 original version [PDF 200KB] had major amendments before its party-line passage by the legislature on May 9 and the June 2 veto of the completed version [PDF 89KB] by Governor Owens with these assertions included in his June 2 letter:

• S.B. 214 moves in the wrong direction.
• This bill does not improve accountability.
• It obfuscates accountability by changing School Accountability Ratings so they are counterintuitive.
• It creates studies to examine how accountability affects teaching and learning, rather than how accountability improves achievement.
• It creates processes with vague language so that districts can dispute any rating that they are uncomfortable with.
• S.B. 214 also makes numerous changes to the actual School Accountability Reports, not to better inform parents so that they can be involved in their child's education, but to equivocate and explain away challenging issues that face public schools.

Districtwide assessments:

• District Assessment Report:
  • The November 11, 2004 workshop presentation that evening had a lot of "good news" statements.
  • The workshop presentation tended to avoid mention of problems and probable causes that may reflect unfavorably upon district and school officials.
  • ICAN November 13 website page [PDF 37KB] on the November 11 BoE regular meeting.

• Grade Two Writing Assessment
  • Data analysis claimed the districtwide decline from the previous year (2004 vs. 2003) "... may be the result of the impact of the early end of the school year, preparation for bond construction, and increased expectations on the part of the scorers after years of exposure to the same writing prompt."
  • The action priorities focused upon changes in the assessment.
  • The handout does not mention that the districtwide decline in test results might reflect a real decline in student learning, which could lead to a different set of possible causes and effective corrective actions.

• ITBS/CogAT Fall 2003 Results

  • Most LPS ITBS "obtained" scores were higher than "predicted" scores, which are based upon national norms for the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and the Cognitive Abilities Test.
  • The handout tabulation shows that LPS students tend to score at lower national percentiles at higher grade levels (e.g., Composite percentiles for Grades 3, 5, and 7 are 80, 73, and 69), but there was no mention of this observation or of possible causes.
  • There was no mention of the increasing percentage of below-grade-level performance of students.  [Refer to the ICAN LPS ITBS Data page.]
  • The handout claims that the ITBS results "... are not comparable to CSAP results because not same test format [and] not aligned to state standards".  [Refer to the ICAN LPS ITBS vs. CSAP page.]
  • Most Board members and other officials who should be accountable for proper use of the LPS/CogAT results to improve student learning continue to fail at this responsibility.  [Refer to the ICAN LPS ITBS and lower-level pages.]

• CSAP:
  • The handout has a variety (26 viewgraphs) on data, examples of data analysis, examples of action priorities, and matched cohort data for reading, writing, math, and science.
  • The LPS averages exceed the state averages for all grades and content areas tested.
  • There was no mention that the LPS reading scores for 2004 had six grades down, one grade up, and one stayed same compared to 2003.
  • There was no mention that the LPS writing scores for 2004 had four grades down, one grade up, and three stayed same compared to 2003.
  • There was no mention of many other "problems" associated with LPS CSAP performance.  [Refer to the ICAN LPS CSAP and lower-level pages.]

District and school improvement plans:

• Board members and other district officials conceal some overall districtwide problems with student academic achievement. [6/23/05]
  • Since October, 2002 the LPS Board of Education and central administration officials have received extensive information from ICAN citizen activists and their pleas to increase the quality of the 2002-2005 School Improvement Plans (SIPs) and their subsequent effects upon the quality and amount of student learning.  [LPS ITBS]
  • ICAN was disappointed to discover that building-level administrators apparently expected and received little, if any, SIP critique by higher-level officials.  Also, the school principals reportedly were promised that the three-year SIPs would be a one-time effort with no significant rewrite requested by central administration.
  • District officials have failed to acknowledge the overall downward trend of LPS student academic achievement district averages as measured by standardized tests.  [6/09/05]
  • ICAN is sure that there will be little or no reduction in the percentages of below-grade-level students until most of the board members and the superintendent publicly declare their willingness to be held accountable for that improvement and then insist that lower-level officials do the same.

• ICAN has reviewed all 24 of the three-year 2002-2005 SIPs that were approved unanimously by the LPS Board of Education in November, 2002.  [LPS SIPs Critique]  Most are merely accreditation compliance documents with significant shortcomings:
  • General lack of challenging objectives to improve academic achievement
  • Cursory analysis of data
  • Unclear problem statements
  • Little identification of probable (or even possible) causes
  • Little confidence in the likely (corrective-action) effectiveness of planned activities

• Opportunities for improvement:

  • A lot depends upon the amount of "buy-in" to the specific objectives at each building for SIPs and district improvement plans.
  • Past examples of LPS school-centered decision-making for improvement of student academic achievement create concerns about future progress.
  • Perhaps the biggest worry by ICAN is the understanding of, agreement with, and commitment to those plans at each building.

Sam also has commented about the LPS District Accountability Committee (DAC):

• Sam is concerned about some aspects of the DAC charge to "Provide advisory input as requested by the Board of Education in the following areas:"
  • "Facilitate communication ...." [charge 2a]
    • Typical DAC meetings have about 40% of schools not represented.
    • Many DAC school representatives are ill-equipped to communicate.
    • The DAC 2003-04 Annual Report has some misleading claims.
  • "Receive and comment on information and progress reports ...." [charge 2b]
    • DAC meetings are mostly passive without much opportunity to initiate action.
    • Review of school improvement plan updates is cursory and ineffective.
    • Review of student achievement is infrequent and superficial.
  • "Participate in the communication of state legislative issues ...." [charge 2c]
    • The annual breakfast with legislators has been ineffective.
    • DAC should not be a political action committee.
  • Support continuing education and training ...." [charge 2d]
    • The annual DAC training is inadequate.
    • DAC member absences and turnover make training problematic.

• The Board of Education has shirked responsibility to improve DAC performance:
  • BoE has not determined the root causes of absenteeism, general ineffectiveness, and other problems associated with the LPS DAC.
  • Some BoE members have reacted defensively to those issues.
  • The BoE seems reluctant to acknowledge and correct these problems.

Last modified: 07/06/2005

Send mail to webmaster@ICAN4.info with your questions or comments about this website.
Copyright © 2003-2005 Independent Citizens Action Network (ICAN).   All Rights Reserved.