|
| |
LPS Accountability
![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif)
ICAN is concerned about the level of credible public accountability
for LPS goals, plans, and results as outlined below and then further described
in subsequent sections:
- LPS Goals
- The District Achievement Goal is significant and challenging.
- Documentation of Board of Education commitment to the District Achievement
Goal is limited.
- The District Achievement Goal has very little visibility on school
websites.
-
The literal sum of all School Improvement Plan goals is far
below the District Achievement Goal.
- LPS Plans
- The LPS Strategic Plan 2006-2011 is much better than the LPS strategic
Plan 2001.
- The current administrative work plan is not published on the LPS district
website.
- The LPS district website has not published current (Nov/06) 2006-2009 School
Improvement Plans (SIPs).
- Few schools have published any current three-year SIPs; most school websites
still only
have Nov/05 updates of the 2002-2005 SIPs.
- ICAN believes that effects of
the Board-approved strategic plan (core beliefs and focus areas) upon the
buildings-implemented school improvement plans (using the districtwide SIP
template) are uncertain.
- LPS Results
- During the past four years (2002-2006) the total changes in LPS CSAP (Colorado Student Assessment Program) performance (percent proficient plus
advanced) have amounted to only 0.7% improvement (an average of less than 0.2%
per year) for the same 23 tests as shown by a
one-page tabulation [PDF 10KB].
- That "stagnation" in student academic achievement is damning indication of the
ineffectiveness of the original 2002-2005 School Improvement Plans (SIPs) and
their annual updates to improve the performance of most LPS students.
- Board of Education members and superintendent have not made public
declarations of willingness to be held accountable for District Achievement
Goal results.
- Educational planning and appraisal needs some "transparency" improvements
for credible public accountability.
Goals:
- District Achievement Goal
- The District Achievement Goal is significant and challenging: "90% of all
students will be on or above grade level in reading, math, writing, and
science by 2011. The achievement gap in student performance will be cut
in half by 2009."
- The LPS "Achievement
Goal" page is an excellent introduction to other student achievement pages
on the district website.
- The District Achievement Goal has very little visibility on school
websites. That absence could indicate lack of commitment by school
administrators.
- School Improvement Plan Goals
- The "Student Learning" goal of the SIP plan at each school nearly always
selects only a portion of one of the four content areas (reading, math,
writing, and science) of the District Achievement Goal.
- Most elementary school SIPs focus on writing as greatest area of need, and
most middle and high school SIPs avoid focus on math as greatest area of
need.
- The literal sum of all School Improvement Plan goals is far
below the District Achievement Goal. Accomplishment
of just the current SIP goals will not accomplish the District Achievement Goal.
- More information is available on the ICAN
LPS SIPs Critique page.
- NCLB AYP Goals
-
The NCLB (No Child Left Behind) Act is the
comprehensive education reform law that was passed by an overwhelming,
bipartisan vote of Congress in 2001.
The NCLB AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) approach puts pressure upon schools
and school districts that used to be able to get by with highlighting their
above-average students and not mentioning their below-average students.
-
The Colorado AYP "proficiency" targets
(which include
partially proficient, proficient, and advanced CSAP scores as percentage of
total, which also includes unsatisfactory) for 2003 and 2004 were set at the lowest 20th percentile for each of the
elementary, middle, and high school groups and districts as a whole in 2002.
The targets were raised in 2005 and will be raised again in 2008, 2011, and
2014.
- LPS as a district met 132 of 134 (98.51%) of the targets in 2005-06, which
was the highest percentage of targets met for the 42 districts with more than
86 targets! LPS also had the highest percentage of targets met for the
15 districts in the Denver metro area. There were 106 of the 178
districts that met 100% of their targets (all 106 had no more than 86
targets).
- ICAN
is confident that the district as a whole will be able to meet AYP if the
higher-level school officials continue maintaining an objective, positive,
“can do” attitude that was essential for the excellent performance improvement
in 2005-06.
Plans:
- LPS Strategic Plan
- The
LPS Strategic Plan 2006-2011 [PDF 19KB]
is much better than the
LPS
Strategic Plan 2001 [PDF 17KB], which had less
focus upon improvement of
academic achievement for all students.
- The new plan
reflects the
priorities of the current Board and aligns with the district’s directions in
all areas.
- The new plan consists of a Vision Statement (Littleton Public Schools
♦
Extraordinary learning, exceptional
community, expanded opportunity and success for all
students), a Mission Statement (To educate
all students for the future by challenging every individual to
continuously learn, achieve, and act with purpose and compassion), eleven Core Beliefs, and
nine Focus Areas.
- Administrative Work Plan
- On December 19, 2006 Superintendent Scott Murphy provided his 18-page
LPS Policy Work Plan 2006-2009 [XLS 111KB],
which is based upon the new strategic plan. The nine focus area
statements in the strategic plan are the same major section headings for the
new policy work plan.
- Initial reaction by ICAN to this new LPS policy work plan is very
favorable.
- The current administrative work plan is not published on the LPS district
website.
- More information is available on the ICAN
LPS Administrative Work Plan page.
- Refer to the ICAN LPS
Administrative Work Plan Archive page for ICAN critique and other information
about the four previous annual administrative work plans, which were based upon
the one-page
LPS
Strategic Plan 2001 [PDF 17KB] during 2002-2006.
- School Improvement Plans
- The previous 2002-2005 SIPs were merely accreditation compliance documents
with significant shortcomings.
- On April 27, 2006 the Board received a presentation on the proposed SIP
template revision and supported the continued development of an SIP template
for distribution to the schools.
- The SIP Template
[PDF 93KB] and associated 2006
SIP Goal Chart [PDF 25KB] can be excellent tools for
school improvement.
- The current SIP process is substantially better than that used for the
2002-2005 SIPs.
- The use of data for SIP decisions far exceeds that in the 2002-2005 SIPs.
- The 2006-2009 SIPs are the school-based action plans for
implementation of the one-page
LPS Strategic Plan 2006-2011 [PDF 19KB]
and accomplishment of the District Achievement Goal.
- However, ICAN believes that effects of
the Board-approved strategic plan (core beliefs and focus areas) upon the
buildings-implemented school improvement plans (using the districtwide SIP
template) are uncertain. A lot depends
upon the levels of understanding of, agreement with, and commitment to the SIPs
in each of the buildings.
- Some SIPs do not identify problem causes clearly. What confidence
can there be for proposed “corrective actions” (which may be a list of
activities) which are not linked to probable causes?
- All 24 (except
Twain ES) of the complete 2006-2009 SIPs were reviewed by the LPS Learning
Support Team and by the District Accountability Committee in November, 2006.
Board members then received excerpts (Executive Summary and Cornerstone Goal
charts) of the 2006-2009 SIPs in November but have made no SIP critique
public.
- More information is available on the ICAN
LPS SIPs Critique page. Excerpts
(Executive Summary and Cornerstone Goal charts) of each school's Nov/06 SIP
for 2006-2009 are located on lower-level ICAN pages for
elementary, middle,
and high school levels.
- Professional Learning Communities
- District officials emphasize the
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) initiative as the principal process
to address the District Achievement Goal.
- PLC definition: "It is an ongoing process that involves
the collaborative, cyclical analysis of data to develop, implement, and
evaluate goals and strategies to improve student achievement.".
- The PLC set-aside of 10 two-hour, late-start periods
(only 2% of teacher time) during each school year will begin in August, 2007.
- At the April 26, 2007 Board meeting citizen
activist Sam Drury criticized the LPS 4/26/07
"Accountability"
website page [PDF
25KB], which included this incredulous LPS statement:
"Measurable results are anticipated by the 2011-2012 school year." That
date is after the two to-be-elected Board members have completed their
first term (Nov/11) and the three recently-elected Board members have
completed their first term (Nov/09). Therefore, all five Board members
could run for re-election without being held accountable for
perhaps-unfavorable PLC results which are not available for public review.
- Sam also stated that Board commitment to the PLC process is not an acceptable
substitute for Board public commitment to District Achievement Goal
results.
Results:
- LPS clearly has lost relative position compared to other
Colorado districts in terms of CSAP total percentages for proficient or advanced
(P+A).
- Public release of
official CSAP test results for 2007 is expected by early August.
- A one-page ICAN tabulation [PDF 10KB] has been
prepared for every CSAP test given in 2002, 2005, and 2006. Relative
changes in P+A (LPS - Colorado) show that the 2006 LPS average lags the state average
by 3.3% for the same 23 tests four years before (2006 - 2002) and lags by 0.7% for
the same 25 tests one
year before (2006 - 2005).
-
CSAP results for the total district [PDF 24KB]
and individual schools are available as separate files on the ICAN
LPS CSAP Schools page.
- Practices by LPS officials prior to 2006
- Previous Board and administration officials seemed satisfied with
maintaining "status quo" (stagnation) rather than demonstrating their
responsibilities for actual improvement of student learning.
- Those officials showed more focus on district "image" rather than candor
and significant improvements.
- They minimized "bad news" about LPS student academic achievement by use of
"obfuscate" and "stonewall"
and "shoot the messenger" tactics.
- Examples of LPS "accountability avoidance" practices were provided by Sam
Drury in his August 18, 2005 Littleton Independent
letter [PDF 18KB] ("LPS
hides bad news on CSAP").
- Key actions by LPS officials beginning in 2006
- After the term-limited departures of three incumbents and the
election of three new members in November, 2005, the current
Board has been
demonstrating in partnership with the superintendent and his staff both willingness and ability to address some of the
concerns stated on the ICAN
LPS Performance Issues page.
- The one-page
LPS Strategic Plan 2006-2011 [PDF 19KB]
was approved unanimously by the Board of Education on September 28, 2006.
All five Board members had been actively engaged in its development during the
previous February Board retreat and subsequent meetings.
- At the September 14, 2006 workshop the Board received and discussed an
"Improving Student Achievement"
presentation
[PDF 452KB], which included this District
Achievement Goal: "90% of all students will be on or above grade level in
reading, math, writing, and science by 2011. The achievement gap in
student performance will be cut in half by 2009.".
- At the February 8, 2007 meeting the Board approved
implementation of the ten-day,
late-start model for
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to address the District Achievement
Goal. Most schools previously had been using some PLC concepts for
years.
- However, neither the Board of Education minutes of Board meetings nor the
district website provide evidence that Board of Education
members and the superintendent publicly declare their willingness to be held accountable
for the District Achievement Goal results.
- Another significant public indication of lack of ownership for results is
that very few schools even mention the
District Achievement Goal on their school websites.
- LPS CSAP third-grade reading results
- Those Grade 3 results are a publicly-available principal
measure of the cumulative primary-years success by schools to meet the reading
comprehension needs of their students.
- The "preliminary and unofficial"
LPS CSAP Reading 2007 Grade 3 data were released to the public on May 3,
2007.
- There has been significant loss in proficient or advanced scores for the
past three years (2005, 2006, and 2007 were 77%, 79%, and 82%) compared with
the previous four years (2001-2004 were 86%, 85%, 86%, and 85%).
- In both 2003 and 2004
there were only four of the 17 schools below 80%, but in both 2005 and 2006
there were 10 and in 2007 there were seven!
- Comparisons of 2007 vs. 2004 results show
11 schools down, five up, and one same.
- In addition to the
above ICAN observations, the 2% gain in 2006 and the 3% gain in 2007
are minor compared to the 8% loss in 2005. However,
district officials boast about the small 2% and 3% gains and
fail to mention the large 8% loss. They also wrongly claim that
2007 is the "third year in a row" in which the number of schools scoring at or
above the state average has increased. Actually, 2007 is only the
second year for an increase; 2005 was a large decrease.
- Such use of inaccurate statements and avoidance of "bad news" disclosures
are contrary to credible public accountability.
- More information is available on the ICAN
LPS CSAP Reading Grade 3 page.
Last modified:
06/28/2007
|
