A Review of Greeley School Performance and SchoolView.org--the new Colorado State parent data tool

The new Colorado school report site Schoolview.org is a hit for the State overall. It isn't perfect but it is a start in the right direction. That is kind of the same thing the State is saying about teaching--identifying trends over time are important in accessing the real quality of your child's education and how your community schools are performing.

Jane Thumbs Up

1) You don't have to be a genius to go to this site and use it and get some information from it.
2) You can see how the specific school you are looking at is doing in math, reading, and writing. Then you can compare it against another school anywhere in the state. This is boon to people looking to relocate with families. It is also a boon to companies looking for a supporting workforce.
3) It makes the educational process appear to be more transparent to the taxpayers footing the bill.
4) It has the potential to improve even further.

Jane Thumbs Down

1) So far I haven't found a list of key terms used. A search on the site search bar brought up common terms that are not helpful nor readily accessible in the specific tool. But this may just be an oversight. The problem will be highlighted below as I write about some of Greeley District 6's data points. It is difficult to know with 100% certainty what terms, used in a school context, like PCI (Performance Cost Index) actually mean to parents and what type of data it reflects and how it should be applied. Frequently it is politically expedient to use confusing terminology. Being transparent is a good ideal. (Being really transparent can be politically deadly. But then that is the whole ideal of being accountable. Perhaps the good folks behind the tool are more governmental and less political and will fix this oversight soon or maybe I am overlooking it to begin with.) If I can't figure it out beyond an educated guess--there is a lot of other folks who are going to struggle. It is nice to look at the little bubbles on the site and be told a school is performing at 41% above proficiency level but parents still need a context for what that means. Especially if they are coming from a District like Greeley where math is one of the most dim performers. (Oh, and where, is the bilingual version for all the nonEnglish speaking parents and grandparents whose children are frequently on the short end of the performing and funding stick in Colorado yet a significant portion of the population? In the political graveyard no doubt...but I digress.)

What does the term "Developing" entail? What do all the acronyms mean? Data is a start. Meaningful data is good. Understandable Meaningful Data for the Public should be the objective.

2) This tool will create new focus on math, reading, and writing. Yes, good for the politicians, not nearly as great for the future of education on the whole. Education is about a lot more. Science is crucial. The Arts (see my previous post) are crucial. There are other areas that have been gutted from the public schools over the past decade in a time where problem solving skills and application of education have become increasingly meaningful. Have we resolved to just give the public a minimal effort or have we resolved to educate our future workforce to meet future economic expectations? If Colorado intends to create a highly skilled workforce and place an emphasis on Green jobs--math, science, and the Arts (innovation and creativity) are crucial to meet that aggressive agenda. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter will need to do more to push Northern Colorado schools, and voters, in that direction. A good start would be in showing how far behind some Districts tail in this regard.

3) There are mixed feelings on rallying political support for gauging the school district as a measure of what has been accomplished over the course of a year (a small segment of time) rather than the final statistical outcomes as a whole (commonly referred to as "teaching the test"). On a generalized surface this implies that a teacher of fifth grade getting a class in at the beginning of the year, as a whole performing at a third grade level (as compared to appropriate incoming fourth grade proficiency), should be rewarded for a year's worth of student growth. So if that teacher elevates the largest portion of this class to a fourth grade level she/he has technically done the job. If she/he elevates the students beyond, say to the expected exit of fifth grade level of proficiency by the end of that year, she/he, some say, would deserve a bonus for going beyond the minimal expectations of the job.

This concept has mixed results. It is much more fair to teachers who are receiving children performing at lower levels and working their tails off to try to get these kids up to speed so to speak. It does reward the higher quality teachers for performance and is a form of merit pay for increased skills. But at the same time it takes some of the heat off the administrators for producing educational outcomes that are at proficiency. As well it could give a green light to average teachers to make only the average anticipated effort. (The lowest performers would be easier to identify though. Although in my experience the really low end performers in education get weeded out during student teaching and first year teaching. Sadly, often the high end performers leave too--but for other reasons like dismal pay, etc.) Essentially, the measure of performance over time concept as compared to specific outcome, gives the political cover to the education system to say "Well, look how much we did do..." rather than "We have done a stellar job and met all our objectives of education."

If you have ever been the parent of a teenager you should recognize this deep dark black hole of new-age logic for what it is. A double-edge sword to say the least. One I'd say we have already seen used here in Greeley based on the comments of District 6 covering the performance figures released yesterday.

What will the District Superintendent tell this year's, and probably the next three years' worth, Greeley District 6 graduates and their families about their education when they don't have the competitive skills they need--especially in math. "You should be thankful we are working on it. Come back in a few years and we may get it right." Heck there is a computer engineering whiz on the Board--what is he going to say? "I got my math background in another state. Greeley Colorado will get there some day and then, you too, can be just like me."

On the other hand the high-end teachers sensitive to public outrage at the overall performance and ready to burn out from overwork, underpay, and exhaustion may find some relief in being able to show that their individual efforts are floating the entire boat--if individual classroom data is ever allowed to go public.

4. Finally, this tool still does not give solutions to the public citizens with the least resources unless they have the ability and funds to relocate or move their child to a better performing school. It will give them the ability to see, instead, the specific failures of their school district and to watch as parents with resources relocate and move their students to higher performing communities. Without resources hiring private tutors isn't a reality either. Of course these parents will be able to complain to the authorities in charge but without political representation or community power (especially in the case of minority groups and immigrants) the complaints will fall on deaf ears. You don't have to own a crystal ball to figure out that this tool also has the power to erode poor performing inner city and barrio schools even further. Let's hope that isn't how it works out.

On to the specific Greeley District 6 Data.

I took a further look at it this morning. See my earlier post. The hole in funding the Board is going after to fill with the Mill Levy tax is obvious. I am assuming national stimulus funds are not aiming for the same per pupil funding deficit. While the State makes up some of the shortfalls in per pupil monies they do not cover the entire amount. Basically Greeley performs lower economically than the surrounding areas and property values are lower. In Colorado 60% of property taxes go to local schools. Therefore, I am assuming, the shortfall of locally dedicated funds. Of course these figures will not take into account any of the recreational facilities and other cultural learning activities put in place by the Greeley City Council that integrate and support the educational system. A higher tax base means more funding essentially.

What makes me curious though, again before I submit to endorsing the mill levy request, is the ROSI statistic (Return on Spending Index). Greeley's is 18.1 after being adjusted for student needs and geographic costs. Essentially those adjustments tend to level out the comparison between school districts with diverse populations and locational needs. Denver's stat is 14.7. Greeley appears to pump more money into core instructional expenses for less results if I am interpreting the data correctly (see my point about listing terms and acronyms above). That would give room to the idea that a higher score on the ROSI means lower performance for higher costs. Which, again, goes back to the administrative accountability I have posted on earlier.

I didn't appreciate the District Superintendent's push to single out the higher performance stats in her statements covered by the Tribune. Mark Twain would have been proud though. The deficiencies in math in the district are fairly appalling and giving parents a shell game approach to being seriously factual about the problems faced doesn't lend credibility to the Supe's management skills or long term planning strategy but certainly will score brownie political points within the staff and authority figures. I like to see educators leading the education system not politicians.

If anyone can help me out on clarifying these terms I'd appreciate it. I think I'll drop a letter into SchoolReviews "contact us" link and see if I get a reply. Overall this is one of the better, more user-friendly, approaches I have seen from a State in regards to making data accessible to the public. It needs some "fixin's" but it is a beginning.

*On another closing note. If you click on the stimulus funding link on the CDE Home page there are several options where the State does a better job than most of trying to lead citizens through the funding maze. I noted, if correctly, that stimulus funds can be used for technology and for teacher compensation. The Mill Levy has been initially directed toward technology funding with a complete dismal of the idea of teacher pay. At present I believe teachers were requested to forgo their cost of living increases this year. Perhaps the District is just creating plan B for technology funding at their teachers' expense? District 6 Union Representatives take note. District 6 missed their targets on LEAs. Perhaps this should be a focus in the future?

• Teacher Incentive Fund
  • Awarded to LEAs, state education agencies (SEAs), or partnerships of an LEA and/or SEA and at least one non&8208;profit organization, to develop and implement performance&8208;based teacher and principal compensation systems in high&8208;need schools, defined as schools with more than 30 percent of enrollment from low&8208;income families.

Greeley District 6 Performance Check

When community issues start bristling with perceptions rather than factual data I have always been convinced the best way for the public to perpetuate a good outcome for all parties is to become educated on the facts. It makes it less easy for either side to manipulate public emotional opinion for their gain. Note the use of the word "facts" rather than information. Information in the age of the Internet has become lost to a sea of half-rowed boats. Then again my nickname may be Pollyanna Jane but I figure it is worth a try to link to the facts.

I started doing some research on the NCES site. I couldn't find this link on the local District 6 website. It would be nice, if it is not there, to include it.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education.

I am also beginning to lament not taking my statistical analysis class more seriously so criticism of my analysis here is certainly welcomed and can only add to the debate.

Interestingly I found a few tables on teacher salaries and peer parities for the area but the most recent data set is for 05-06. A lot can happen in three years when the District tends to renegotiate almost every year.

You can skip reading this paragraph unless you want to recreate the same data chart or want to comment on potential comparison errors. I chose the 150 miles radius from zip 80631 for my comparison under the peer tools menu. I went through the advanced search information and simply entered Colorado and the zip 80631. It also helps to know that District Six is classified as MSA-Central City and a Regular School District. Also, Greeley's NCES District ID:0804410. Several of these labels are selections at the bottom to help define the comparisons. I left all other comparative criteria blank. I am sure the comparisons the Union and District have agreed upon are much more tightly controlled for various financial factors. How comparisons are selected can give huge advantage to one party or the other. This may even be why mediators are called in--to do this selection if there is any question on the established process. Oranges need to be compared to oranges not tangerines. There were 10 districts automatically selected for the comparison averages below from my search--including Greeley District 6.

For my own information I am particularly interested in the comparison between dollars for admin to dollars for teachers. The percentages below are what came up. Remember data is for the 2005-06 school year. I have heard that teachers have been negatively hit the last two sessions and also that the Greeley Board earned an award from the State last year for cleaning up a deplorable situation. Confirmation on these would be welcomed.

Peer Averages
Instruc. Expend. 56%
Student & Staff Support 11%
Admin 17%
Food Service, Operations, & Other 16%

Greeley's individual data returns

Peer Averages
Instruc. Expend. 60%
Student & Staff Support 12%
Admin 11%
Food Service, Operations, & Other 17%

These are the possibilities I see in the statistical relationships (remember stats aren't people but they can point the focus to appropriate areas to begin the search for remedies).

First off Greeley is spending more on teachers and less on administrative salaries. It is a probability that the decrease in administration spending results in the slight uptick in Student & Staff Support. I am not interested in the 4th category.

The student teacher ratio returned is 17.1 for Greeley compared to the average 17.0. Hence teachers are pretty close here. There is an average of 1 teacher for every 17 students in the District. This stat however says nothing about the effective distribution of teachers or their workload. We know that classes have 30 or more children in them frequently. Special education courses (remedial and gifted) may be a part of that skew.

However it should be noted that on the profile school district data I looked up on the same site it says 16.8 students per instructor. I do not know why this discrepancy would exist for the same district on the same site unless the comparisons I pulled up for expenditures does not have pre-kindergarten included. *I'd like to measure Greeley without the PK data simply because I think the abundant religious based nonprofits in the area skew the demand for services but I couldn't get the data unless I included it.

I think it would be rather common to conclude the teachers are already near parity and the administration under-paid but it is never that easy. First of all I didn't find any raw data on a ratio for administrators per student--we have just the percentage. So the workload of admin and exactly what is going into the comparison statistics on admin are reported differently from the profile stuff. I could try to come up with a stat but the risk of error would be huge unless I put a whole lot of time into sorting it out--so I won't go there. Going back to the produced statistics in the comparison, this could mean fewer administrators are being paid larger salaries or administrators in general are paid less.

For me, I'll address this more at the end, the question is what is the Admin workload and if there are lesser administrators is this more effective or less. The answer lies in the quality of personnel not the abundance. Also the job duty distribution has an effect. Considering the problems in the past the latter conclusions have some clout. Performance should be closely examined.

As for teachers, depending on what the performance issues are locally, they are above state parity and just below national parity if I read it correctly (and I am sure someone will nail me if I got that wrong). Greeley should be competitive in the labor market considering these stats. Of course that doesn't take into consideration the current trend in rise of cost of living and the cost-of-living increases they have been denied. Workload, due to regulations, or other budgetary cuts may have increased too.

My quick assumption is that it is likely, but I do not have that information, the teachers have fallen behind on parity issues during the last three years and are now facing another cut next year.

The question unanswered is what has happened to management and admin salaries in the meantime. If faced with incredibly poor performance (depending on the issues cited), if I were sitting on that Board of Directors, I'd have been pumping money into improving the quality of administration. What price did that cost the district?

Over all I see a three-fold big picture issues. One is "Is the Greeley area attractive for teachers to make their homes in and raise their families here. Are their pay standards high enough to sustain the quality and status expected for teachers to be role models in the community." Secondly, "Is management failing to give enough support to teachers and if so is it due to inadequate distribution of resources--what is the quality of management decline for minimizing admin dollars." Third, "Are teachers being rewarded for quality performance and held accountable for poor performance. Are performance problems based on lack of support from management, failure to successfully screen, plan, and to acquire funding for high quality personnel." The last of the third issues is a long term strategic visioning problem (directly the responsibility of the Board of Directors).

In my view, as a board member, I'd go looking at the qualifications of teachers and management, in particular, review the human resources policies and hiring procedures independently without any subjective involvement from the district superintendent.

Of course this will not make the negotiations go any smoother at all. Pointing fingers at everyone just indicates the system is broken and we already know that.

My personal point is I think the public at large needs to be held accountable for the broken system because they are the check and balance on any democratic system. Negotiations aren't going to remedy the situation unless the Board of Directors have a better long term plan or are given more funds to work with (if proven they are effectively using the resources they have currently).

The Board of Directors are elected locally. Do they have the skill set needed? Are they puppets for an overzealous administrator? Local and State politicians often play on public perceptions about education to get re-elected on supporting education but then abandon that support when policy and legislation is written. The Jellyfish always rise to the top when times are good. Nationally same thing--we elect those who budget for and structure the public system.

Personally I think that teachers should be paid on the value they produce rather than simple parity and experience. Unfortunately I think it is easy for the public just to calculate value as the need of the moment rather than the future. Senior citizens for example may be looking forward to living on a fixed income in the future and want to control tax increases or are shocked at the rising price tag on education but our children are looking forward to a promising future and if the "whole" is not well educated then we have already sunk the kids' ship before it leaves port. America's competitive advantage has always been fueled by its level of organization and education. You have to have the infrastructure before you can have the performance. Education is the best investment you can make.

I'd be asking my local teachers union what their expenditures of effort are all about when local, state, and federal education legislation comes up. Are they really stepping up to bat?

Enough of the soapbox.

Here is another great site for facts. These are figures on the comparison internationally.

EDUCATION INDICATORS: An International Perspective / Indicator 40

EDUCATION INDICATORS: An International Perspective

Indicator 40: Teacher Salaries

Teacher salaries are a measure of teachers' standard of living and reflect what society is willing to pay for the direct work of education. Expressed in units of a common currency, they reflect the cost of teachers in an absolute sense, irrespective of a nation's wealth and the resources it can devote to teaching.* Teacher salaries relative to GDP per capita allow for comparisons among countries with wide income disparities. A simple index is created by dividing a teacher salary figure by a country's GDP per capita and multiplying by 100. If the index equals 100, a teacher is paid the same as the per capita GDP. Expressed in this manner, the indicator examines what each country spends on its teachers relative to its ability to pay for their services. For example, a poor country with lower teacher salaries than those of other nations may actually be devoting a larger share of its available resources to teachers than wealthier countries.

Sidebar: Teacher salaries are not a clear-cut marker of teacher compensation /*

* At both starting and maximum salary levels, primary and lower secondary school teachers in the United States had among the highest average salaries of all countries for which data were available when salaries were viewed in absolute terms (in constant U.S. dollars). To illustrate, the 1992 average salary of the primary school teachers at the maximum salary level was higher in the United States than it was in all of the countries reported except Japan, Austria, and Portugal. At the lower secondary level, the starting salaries of U.S. teachers were among the highest in absolute terms, at $21,787, along with those of teachers from Spain ($22,964) and Germany ($27,444).

* However, U.S. primary and lower secondary school teachers did not fare as well when the salary was viewed relative to GDP per capita. All of the G-7 countries with available data equaled or exceeded the United States on this measure (at both starting and maximum salary levels), as did most of the remaining countries.

* The ratio of teacher salary to per capita GDP varied considerably across the countries presented. To illustrate, the ratio of starting salary for primary school teachers to per capita GDP ranged from 84 in Sweden to 188 in Turkey.

*The statement is accurate as long as currencies are converted using purchasing power parity (PPP) rates rather than market exchange rates. PPP rates isolate the current, relative domestic purchasing powers of different currencies and are the rates used to convert the figures presented here.