Colorado test scores a ‘mixed bag’ — again — at innovation schools, new report finds
For at least the third time in the 15 years since Colorado lawmakers created them, innovation schools have gotten middling marks in a new report meant to measure whether freeing the schools from bureaucracy boosts student test scores.
The report by the Keystone Policy Center found that students who attend innovation schools did no better on state math and literacy tests last spring — and, in many cases, performed worse — than students who attend traditional district-run schools and independent charter schools. The report did find some bright spots, such as students of color performing better on some tests and higher scores in Denver’s innovation zones, which have been controversial.
State policymakers had hoped innovation would be an effective strategy for turning around low-performing schools. That hasn’t necessarily turned out to be the case, as indicated by the report’s title: “A Decidedly Mixed Bag.”
Van Schoales, senior policy director at the Keystone Policy Center, said there’s nothing particularly new or different about the report’s conclusion.
“What’s different is that this started in 2008, so we’re now 15 years later … and it’s sort of like a, ‘Meh,’” Schoales said in an interview.
On the spectrum of school autonomy, Colorado’s innovation schools fall between district-run schools, which are the least autonomous, and charter schools, which are the most.
Under state law, innovation schools can waive certain rules to do things such as extend the school day or opt out of granting teachers Colorado’s version of tenure. The idea is that giving schools more autonomy allows them the flexibility to better meet students’ needs.
While the report says innovation schools’ academic results last school year were “lackluster,” innovation supporters argue that it’s hard to make generalizations. There are more than 100 innovation schools in Colorado and lots of variation between them, from the population of students they serve to the reasons they sought innovation status.
While some schools wanted the freedom to grow their own vegetables or focus on the arts, others sought innovation status in the hopes of boosting persistently low student test scores.
“Innovation is a strategy that has been used across the state in many different contexts and for many different reasons,” said Bailey Holyfield, executive director of an innovation zone in Denver called the Luminary Learning Network. “As we look at high-level aggregate data, it is unsurprising then in some ways that the data reflects a mixed bag, to quote the author’s title.”
What the report found
At least two other reports, in 2014 and 2019, concluded that innovation schools fared about the same academically as district-run schools.
Those reports were done by different research groups and focused only on Denver, which has more innovation schools than any other district in the state. The Keystone report looks at all innovation schools in Colorado.
Among its conclusions:
• Overall, fewer students at innovation schools met expectations on state math and literacy tests this past spring than students at district-run or charter schools.
• But there were some bright spots. For instance, Black and Hispanic students in grades three through eight at innovation schools outperformed Black and Hispanic students at district-run schools on the state literacy test. The same was true for students experiencing poverty at innovation schools on both the literacy and math tests.
• A “more robust longitudinal study” is needed to figure out whether innovation status is an effective way for a school to boost student test scores. The Colorado State Board of Education has the power to order changes at chronically low-performing schools, and innovation status is considered the least disruptive option. But State Board members have wondered if it works — or if harsher options, such as closure, are warranted.
• Innovation schools face barriers in being innovative. “At least some evidence exists that district systems may be slow to evolve, if they do at all, and may functionally prevent innovation schools and zones from fully implementing approved autonomies.”
• Some innovation schools actually aren’t innovative, either because leaders are “simply ‘checking boxes’ that higher-ups want to see” or because higher-ups block ideas they see as too revolutionary. Innovation schools “may not actually be empowered to innovate in deeper ways that might truly transform outcomes for students.”