The new DPS SPF (School Performance Framework) report cards are out, and the only thing that is clear is that they are pretty confusing and show some inconsistencies. As expected, the Stapleton elementary schools all received positive overall ratings. What’s not clear is what that means. “What we are saying is that those schools are meeting or exceeding expectations in our specified framework,” said DPS Superintendent Tom Boasberg. “The schools are passing the areas we are focusing on, which include a list of areas which are somewhat ill-defined.” Two of the factors included in the SPF rating system include “Status” and “Growth.” Both of these appear to be based on test scores of students. Another factor in the grading system is “Parent/Student Engagement.” As expected, Stapleton schools scored particularly well in this area, but it is unclear of the metrics on how these scores came to pass. Boasberg explains how the board of education came up with those particular numbers. “There were certain factors we took into consideration, and we used those factors to come up with quotients, which we eventually turned into finite numbers. It’s just that simple, really.” No factor in the SPF is as controversial as the “Equity” rating. Essentially, the schools place at-risk students in one bucket, which includes students of color, students with disabilities, English language learners, and students living in poverty, and then compare those students with the rest of the school population. What they are comparing is how much each student group, at-risk students and the rest of the students, is improving. “Ideally, we want to have the at-risk students improving at the same rate as the rest of the students,” says Boasberg. The problem with this is that even if all of the students are doing well, but the at-risk students aren’t keeping pace with the rest of the students, a school gets a poor Equity grade. University of Colorado social scientist Kathleen Murphy explains the flaw in this metric. “There are several flaws in using this ‘equity’ metric,” says Murphy. “Foremost is the fact that our social environment and our genetics determine so much. Some kids, based on genetic or environmental factors, simply are not going to test as well, or have the ability to improve as quickly as other students. However, if those students are still doing well, even if they are not doing as well as others, we shouldn’t focus on the gap, but on the fact that both are succeeding to their relative abilities in regards to what they were given.” Boasberg admits the new grading system isn’t perfect, but it draws attention to an issue which needs to be addressed, which is the growing gap between the haves and have nots in the school system. “We will learn from this round, and make adjustments,” said Boasberg. “What we are trying to emphasize is that it’s not how well you do, but how well you do in comparison to another group and how quickly that group is improving when compared to another group, and then compare it to the other schools.” When you put it that way, it’s all pretty simple. No, wait. It’s not. I guess I kind of get it. No, really, I don’t. ]]>