{"id":6734,"date":"2016-11-30T21:44:53","date_gmt":"2016-12-01T04:44:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/?p=6734"},"modified":"2016-11-30T21:44:53","modified_gmt":"2016-12-01T04:44:53","slug":"dps-spf-school-rating-system-shows-ne-denver-schools-doing-welli-mean-bad-waitgood-i-guesshold-up-i-guess-not-so-goodi-think","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/?p=6734","title":{"rendered":"DPS SPF School Rating System Shows NE Denver Schools Doing Well\u2026I Mean Bad. Wait\u2026Good, I Guess\u2026Hold Up, I Guess Not so Good\u2026I Think?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tThe new DPS SPF (School Performance Framework) report cards are out<\/a>, 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\u2019s not clear is what that means. \u201cWhat we are saying is that those schools are meeting or exceeding expectations in our specified framework,\u201d said DPS Superintendent Tom Boasberg. \u201cThe schools are passing the areas we are focusing on, which include a list of areas which are somewhat ill-defined.\u201d\n\nTwo of the factors included in the SPF rating system include \u201cStatus\u201d and \u201cGrowth.\u201d Both of these appear to be based on test scores of students. Another factor in the grading system is \u201cParent\/Student Engagement.\u201d 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. \u201cThere 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\u2019s just that simple, really.\u201d\nNo factor in the SPF is as controversial as the \u201cEquity\u201d 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. \u201cIdeally, we want to have the at-risk students improving at the same rate as the rest of the students,\u201d says Boasberg. The problem with this is that even if all of the students are doing well, but the at-risk students aren\u2019t 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. \u201cThere are several flaws in using this \u2018equity\u2019 metric,\u201d says Murphy. \u201cForemost 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\u2019t focus on the gap, but on the fact that both are succeeding to their relative abilities in regards to what they were given.\u201d\nBoasberg admits the new grading system isn\u2019t 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. \u201cWe will learn from this round, and make adjustments,\u201d said Boasberg. \u201cWhat we are trying to emphasize is that it\u2019s 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.\u201d When you put it that way, it\u2019s all pretty simple. No, wait. It\u2019s not. I guess I kind of get it. No, really, I don\u2019t.\n]]>\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[49],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-6734","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-issue-139","7":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6734","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6734"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6734\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6734"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6734"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stapletonion.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6734"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}