|
| |
LPS Performance Issues
![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif)
ICAN remains concerned
about some LPS policies and practices which affect:
- Student performance
(particularly below-grade-level students).
- Student assessment and
evaluation program effectiveness.
- District and school
improvement planning.
Student performance (particularly below-grade-level students):
- Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) results:
- CSAP 2006 results
- Reading Grades 3-10 overall proficient or advanced (P+A) was 80% (no
change from 2005).
- Writing Grades 3-10 overall P+A was 68% (no change from 2005).
- Math Grades 3-10 overall P+A was 65% (1% gain from 2005).
- Science Grade 8 overall P+A was 61% (5% loss from 2005).
- Overall P+A was 70% (no change from 2005).
- Changes in performance since 2002
- During the past four years (2002 -
2006) the total changes in LPS CSAP 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 the ICAN
one-page tabulation [PDF 10KB].
- LPS has an overall downward trend in CSAP performance when compared
with the overall state average for all four subjects (reading, writing, math,
and science).
- District and schools performance indexes
-
The ICAN one-page tabulation [PDF 12KB]
of LPS CSAP district (DPI) and school (SPI) proficiency indexes provides
comparisons of 2006 and 2005 performance for subject areas and the total for
each school and the district.
- The August
ICAN SPI results are excellent predictors for the CDE SAR results, which
are published about four months later as overall scores for each school.
- The Board is scheduled to discuss CSAP results for elementary schools on
October 12 and for middle and high schools on October 26.
- Refer to LPS CSAP and lower-level pages for
more information.
- Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) results:
-
All of the averages for the 2004 November tests were less than those in 2003
for all subject areas (Reading, Language, Mathematics, Core Total, Social
Studies, Science, Sources of Information, and Composite) and all three grades.
- The percentages of students with obtained Grade Equivalent scores less than
grade level (per ITBS national norms) for grades 3, 5, and 7 were 24%, 28%, and
28%, respectively, for Composite (all subtests).
- The percentages of students with obtained Grade Equivalent scores less than
grade level (per ITBS national norms) for grades 3, 5, and 7 were 23%, 28%, and
27%, respectively, for Core Total (Reading, Language, and Mathematics
subtests).
- The lowest-performing schools had these percentages of students with
obtained Grade Equivalent scores less than grade level for Core Total:
- Grade 3 (15 schools): 57, 56, 39, 38, and 34.
- Grade 5 (15 schools): 72, 58, 47, 43, and 41.
- Grade 7 (four schools): 34 and 32.
- LPS students tended 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).
- The above November, 2004 data are the latest available results for ITBS
testing, which was discontinued by Board action on April 28, 2005.
- Refer to LPS ITBS and lower-level pages for
more information.
- Other indicators:
- School Accountability Reports (SARs)
- Thirteen of the LPS scores for 2004 went
down from 2003, and thirteen went up.
-
Sixteen of the LPS scores for 2005 went
down from 2004, eight went up, and two
stayed the same.
- The
ICAN one-page tabulation
[PDF 12KB] shows LPS scores for the past four years for all 26 LPS
schools.
- Refer to LPS SAR Ratings for
more information.
- CCHE remediation reports on LPS high school graduates who need
remediation to meet higher-education requirements
- Colorado Commission on Higher Education, "Remedial Education [for]
Incoming College Students ...", December, 2005
- Core academic subjects of reading, writing, and mathematics
- Overall Colorado total demand for remedial instruction among first-time
college students was 30% for school year 2003-04.
- Overall LPS district remediation rate was 23% (better than 30% state
average).
-
| |
Total |
Math |
Writing |
Reading |
| State total |
29.60% |
24.60% |
14.13% |
13.56% |
| District total |
22.98% |
19.81% |
10.62% |
8.40% |
| Arapahoe HS |
10.14% |
9.18% |
2.42% |
0.48% |
| Heritage HS |
23.88% |
19.03% |
13.06% |
8.21% |
| Littleton HS |
38.46% |
35.26% |
17.31% |
19.23% |
- Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)
- Reading results in terms of median RIT scores and national-norm percentile
ranks are available on the LPS website for Grades 3-10 as
district summaries for Fall 2005 and Spring 2006. There are no other
descriptive statistics for the district and no data for individual schools
available on the website.
- The Fall 2005 percentile ranks for Grades 3-10 Reading are 55, 59, 70, 67, 68,
68, 72, and 75, respectively, for the district medians.
- The Spring 2006 percentile ranks for Grades 3-10 Reading are 66, 68, 72, 64, 68,
67, 70, and 73, respectively, for the district medians.
- In other words, the Reading percentile ranks increased for most
elementary school students and decreased for most middle and high
school students compared to national norms.
- Both Reading and Mathematics MAP tests will be taken this school year
(2006-07) for
Grades 3-10.
Student assessment and evaluation program effectiveness:
- Classroom assessments:
- Current grading criteria and practices vary widely
among teachers and buildings in the district.
- Grade inflation and
social promotion apparently are widespread for LPS below-grade-level students.
-
There has been grade inflation taking place in
some of the buildings, indicated by lack of student mastery on the ITBS and
CSAP assessments year after year.
-
Some of the lower-performing schools in the district have taken the easy way
out by using grade inflation (giving
grades well above where the student is actually performing).
-
Littleton Public Schools Policy Code IKE
Promotion and Retention of Students really doesn’t address any performance
requirements for promotion (e.g., students would be required "to meet
or exceed the proficient level performance" for core subjects such as reading,
writing, and math).
- Other LPS practices:
- Grade 2 Writing Assessment
- An LPS report to the Board of Education on November 11, 2004 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.
- There was no 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.
- By the way, the actual CSAP Writing percentages below proficient
for 2003 through 2006 for Grade 3 were 30, 33, 33, and 38; for Grade 4 they
were 31, 31, 33, and 35; both trends are unfavorable.
- LPS Annual Reports
- The LPS annual reports are not "progress" reports either in terms of
actual results vs. measurable objectives or in terms of actual data for
2004-05 vs. 2003-04.
- The "Accomplishments" sections on most school pages mention activities
rather than significant changes ("progress") in student academic achievement.
- Although many LPS schools have large proportions of students (20 to 40
percent or more) performing below grade level in core academic subjects, the
LPS annual report is similar to other LPS publications in the tendency to
highlight the above-average students and rarely mention the below-average
students.
- LPS public statements
- LPS officials offer
very little public comment about the large number of students whose academic
achievement is below grade level.
- LPS officials try to
frame the academic achievement issue in terms of the kids who got ahead rather
than the ones they left behind.
- Use of “stable” to exclude changes unfavorable to
LPS image
- ICAN believes that there
will be little or no reduction in the percentages of below-grade-level
students until most of the LPS Board of Education members and the
superintendent publicly declare their willingness to be held accountable for
such specific, measurable objectives and then insist that lower-level
officials do the same.
District and school improvement planning:
- School Improvement Plans:
- Previous 2002-2005 SIPs
- Most
LPS school improvement
plans for 2002-2005 were primarily accreditation compliance
documents for mere compliance with accreditation requirements rather than
commitment to challenging objectives to improve academic achievement.
- Although most of the
recent SIP updates do show some improvements, many still suffer from cursory
analysis of data, unclear problem statements, and little identification of
probable (or even possible) causes that could provide confidence in the likely
(corrective-action) effectiveness of planned activities.
- There still is much
room for significant improvement in the plans to increase student learning.
- District Accountability Committee reviews of plans
have been cursory and ineffective.
- The "stagnation" in student academic achievement
during the past four years is damning indication of the ineffectiveness of the original 2002-2005 School Improvement Plans and
their annual updates to improve the performance of most LPS students.
- Refer to LPS SIPs Critique for
more information.
- New 2006-2009 SIPs
- 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 in August.
- The latest template version was made available for public review on September
11. The SIP Template
[PDF 93KB] and associated 2006
SIP Goal Chart [PDF 25KB] can be excellent tools for
school improvement.
- Some of the buildings
will not be able to produce better results without some reallocation of
resources that are not yet available from the district.
- A major uncertainty about the SIPs is the understanding of, agreement
with, and commitment to those SIPs at each building.
- School officials should
become more accountable for actual student learning rather than attempt
to limit themselves to curriculum delivery.
- Other plans:
- Strategic Plans
- The September 22 draft
of Strategic Plan 2006-2011
[PDF 40KB] is likely to be approved with minor, if any,
revision at the September 28 Board meeting.
- The Strategic Plan 2001
[PDF 17KB] did not emphasize increasing academic achievement for all
students.
- Administrative Work Plans
- The
AWP for 2005-2006 [PDF
82KB] is an outline of major initiatives rather than detailed statements of
objectives in terms of measurable results.
- ICAN
still hopes to see substantial
improvement in statements of objectives in terms of measurable results rather
than just processes and activities.
- District Improvement Plans
- The 28-page November, 2004
District
Improvement Plan [PDF 358KB] has not yet shown much change in results at the
district level.
- Like the SIPs, a lot depends upon the amount of "buy-in" to the specific
objectives at each building.
- NCLB AYP corrective-action plans
- NCLB (No Child Left
Behind) AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) is an excellent approach to mandate
public disclosure of below-grade-level performance and to force development of
effective corrective-action plans to improve student learning in core academic
subjects.
- NCLB AYP Title I Program Improvement Plan results are much better for 2006
(according to LPS officials, apparently made 132 or 133 out of 134 targets)
compared to 2005 (123/131) and 2004 (124/128) as posted on the CDE website.
- LPS must submit corrective-action plans to CDE by December 29.
- Individual Learning Plans
- School officials at
least should create Individual Learning Plans for core-subjects proficiency
for below-grade-level students who do not have them.
- Measurements of student
academic achievement should emphasize continual annual reduction of the percentage of
students who are below grade level. Those students clearly have been left
behind compared to state and national standards.
Last modified:
09/24/2006
|
