EMBARGOED UNTIL 2/1/2017, 10 am

THE OUTLIERS

THE STATE OF COLORADO SCHOOL DISTRICTS I 2016

endorsed by

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Acknowledgments
A+ Colorado would like to thank the Colorado Department of Education and the Colorado
Department of Higher Education for making accessible information about outcomes for
students during and after their time in Colorado’s K-12 public education system.
Additionally, we would not be able to produce this report without the support of our
funders including The Anschutz Foundation, Carson Foundation, Daniels Fund, The Denver
Foundation, The Donnell-Kay Foundation, The Gates Family Foundation, The Piton Foundation,
Rose Community Foundation, and Walton Family Foundation.
Most importantly we would like to thank the educators across our state who work daily to instill
in our students a sense of curiosity and a love of learning.

Endorsements

Colorado Succeeds is a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition of business leaders who have
joined forces to make sure the education system works better and smarter for all the
people of Colorado.

2

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Table of Contents
I.

Introduction I 5

II.

Demographics I 6

III.

K-12 Achievement I 8
a. Who is Reading, Writing, and Doing Math
at Grade Level? I 9
b. Who is Bucking the Trend? I 11
c. Who is Making Headway Year over Year? I 14

IV.

College/Career Readiness I 18
a. Who is Opening Doors for Graduates? I 22
b. What Happens Beyond K-12? I 27

V.

Conclusion I 28

VI.

Appendices I 29

3

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

List of Figures
1.

Districts with the Largest Increases in Student Enrollment (2011-2015) I 6

2. Districts with the Largest Changes in Proportion of Students Qualifying for Free or
Reduced Price Lunch (percentage points) 2011-2015 I 6
3.

Racial and Ethnic Makeup of Colorado Students I 7

4.

Districts with the Largest Changes in Proportions of Racial and Ethnic Student Groups
(percentage points) 2011-2015 I 7

5. Districts with the Largest Changes in Proportion of Emerging Multilingual Students
Learning English 2011-2015 I 7
6. Districts with Big Changes in Relative Performance in Elementary English Language
Arts 2013-2016 I 10
7.

Districts with Big Changes in Relative Performance in Elementary Math 2013-2016 I 10

8. Districts with Big Changes in Relative Performance in Middle School English
Language Arts 2013-2016 I 10
9.

The Outliers: Elementary School English Language Arts Percent of Students who met
Grade Level Standards Compared to Districts with Similar Demographics (2016) I 12

10. The Outliers: Elementary School Math Percent of Students who Met Grade Level
Standards Compared to Districts with Similar Demographics (2016) I 12
11. The Outliers: Middle School English Language Arts Percent of Students who met
Grade Level Standards Compared to Districts with Similar Demographics (2016) I 13
12. Growth by Race or Ethnicity: CMAS PARCC English Language Arts (2016) I 15
13. Growth by Race or Ethnicity: CMAS PARCC Math (2016) I 16
14. Growth by Free or Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility: CMAS PARCC English Language Arts
(2016) I 17
15. Growth by Free or Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility: CMAS PARCC Math (2016) I 17
16. Districts with Improved Graduation Rates (2011-2015) I 18
17. Highest and Lowest Graduation Rates by Race or Ethnicity (2015) I 20
18. Highest and Lowest Graduation Rates for Emerging Multilingual Students (2015) I 21
19. Highest and Lowest Graduation Rates for Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price
Lunch (2015) I 21
20. Highest and Lowest Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities (2015) I 21
21. ACT Scores by Race or Ethnicity I 24
22. ACT Scores by Free or Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility I 25
23. Schools with the Top Ten ACT Scores by Student Group I 26
24. Highest Matriculation Rates (Class of 2014) I 27
25. Lowest Matriculation Rates (Class of 2014) I 27
26. Highest Remediation Rates (Class of 2014) I 27
27. Lowest Remediation Rates (Class of 2014) I 27

4

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Introduction
Welcome to A+ Colorado’s first annual
report exploring how districts across
the Centennial State are serving diverse
student populations. We envision a state
where every student has access to a
high quality education: an education
that provides students with the skills,
knowledge, and opportunities needed for
success in the 21st century.
The intent of The Outliers is to do just
that— identify school districts that buck
trends across the state. This provides a
snapshot of where outcomes for students
are different from the norm, where the
promise of an excellent education shines
bright, and where that light is still too dim.
Above all this report identifies districts
that are demonstrating success and merit
further investigation.
Why the focus on school districts? In
Colorado, a state that embraces local
control, school districts hold a particularly
important position in providing a high
quality education. School districts are
where the rubber hits the road. For
example, districts are responsible for
choosing school leaders, they determine
staffing models, and, they can dictate
school operations, with decisions from
how to distribute funds to curriculum
selection. Importantly, districts are
responsible for ensuring their schools
meet student performance expectations.
This report looks specifically at student
performance outcomes at the district level.

In compiling this report, we gathered
publicly available information on all school
districts across the state, and looked at
trends over the past five years. Unless
otherwise noted, data was gathered from
the Colorado Department of Education.
Some data, like disaggregated ACT
scores, required a Colorado Open
Records request. Other data, like
disaggregated CMAS PARCC achievement
data was not publicly available; therefore
we are unable to provide insight such as
which districts are closing the opportunity
gap between students of different races
and ethnicities, or different income levels
for example.
We focus our analysis on districts
serving more than 1,000 students across
pre-kindergarten to twelfth grade. This
represents 76 of 186 school districts and
BOCES,1 and 96 percent of all Colorado
students. We made this decision not
because any sized district matters more
or less than others, but we recognize
that smaller school systems face unique
challenges that our research does not
address.
You can find the longitudinal data that has
been used to develop this report for all
school districts at apluscolorado.org.

1 Boards of Cooperative Educational
Services, or BOCES, are administrative agencies that provide
educational services to two or more
school districts that find it either
advantageous or cost-effective to
share services. For more information,
see coloradoboces.org

5

 DEMOGRAPHICS

THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Welcome to the West: How are School
District Demographics Changing?
Demographic shifts help us understand a piece of the diverse experiences of Colorado’s
students. The state serves nearly 900,000 students, a number that has grown steadily over the
past five years. The increase in the student population has primarily been driven by growth in the
Denver Metro Area (which saw a 4.6 percent increase in students), urban-suburban communities
outside of the Denver Metro area (which saw a 7.2 percent increase in students), and remote
communities (which saw a 7.3 percent increase in students). Growth was not as strong in outlying
towns and outlying cities. For a map of Colorado school districts, see Appendix A.

% Increase in Enrollment

Figure 1: Districts with the Largest Increases in Student Enrollment (2011-2015)
50%

43.5%
36.5%
25%
20.6%
15.8%

0%

Charter
School
Institute

Falcon 49

13.0%

12.6%

Windsor Johnstown- St Vrain
Milliken
RE-4
Valley
RE-5J
RE 1J

12.3%

11.6%

11.3%

Mapleton 1 Steamboat Denver
Springs
County 1
RE-2

Summit
RE-1

Not Pictured Above: Byers 32J authorizes several multi-district online schools which accounts for a drastic increase in enrollment (514.4%) over the past five years:
Colorado Digital Academy (beginning in 2014), Colorado Virtual Academy (previously authorized by Adams 12, authorized by Byers starting in 2014), Elevate
Academy (starting in 2104), and Great Plains Academy (beginning in 2012).

Despite the fact that Colorado has shown strong recovery from the recession of 2008, the
recovery has not been evenly distributed. 7.8 percent more students qualified for free or reduced
price lunch (FRL, a proxy measure for students from low-income families) in 2015 than in 2011,
outpacing growth of the student population statewide.
This is particularly true outside of the Denver Metro Area. During the same time period, the
proportion of students qualifying for free or reduced price lunch jumped from 41 percent to 44
percent in urban-suburban communities outside Denver. In remote communities the proportion of
students qualifying for free or reduced price lunch increased from 44 percent to 46 percent.

Figure 2: Districts with the Largest Changes in Proportion of Students
Qualifying for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (percentage points) 2011-2015
14.7

Trinidad 1

73.9% FRL

13.6

Falcon 49

34.6% FRL

Mapleton 1

-7.4

Alamosa RE-11J

-7.4

Charter School Institute

-8.6

Johnstown-Milliken RE-5J

-8.7

61.2% FRL

64.6% FRL

42.6% FRL

28.2% FRL

-12

-8

-4

0

4

Change in Proportion

8

12

16

6

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 3: Racial and Ethnic Makeup of Colorado Students
900,000

Number of Students

Racial and ethnic demographics are also
changing: the number of Latinx students
(a gender-neutral term for students who
identify as either Latino or Latina) grew
twice as much as the student population
overall. Students who identify as two
or more races represent a small, but
also growing proportion of the student
population. In exploring academic
outcomes by racial and ethnic groups, this
report focuses primarily on the four largest
categories in Colorado: white students,
Latinx students, black students, and
multiracial students.

899,112

854,265

3.8%
0.2%

3.1%
0.2%

600,000

56.1%

54.1%

300,000
33.4%
31.9%

Changes in racial and ethnic demographics
have been far more rapid for specific districts,
particularly in parts of the Colorado Springs
metro area and the Denver metro area.

4.6%
3.1%
0.7%

4.8%
3.1%
0.8%

0

2011

2015

American Indian or Alaskan Native
Black
White
Multiracial

Asian
Latino
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Figure 4: Districts with the Largest Changes in Proportions of Racial and Ethnic Student Groups
(percentage points) 2011-2015
District
Byers 32J

Black Students

District

Latinx Students

District

White Students

Denver County

+2.3

+4

Byers 32J

+40.5

Ellicott 22

+1.9

Trinidad 1

+8.9

Valley Re-1

Adams-Arapahoe 28J
(Aurora)

+1.1

Falcon 49

+7.2

Manitou Springs 14

+1

-0.2

Harrison 2

+6.9

State of Colorado

-2

State of Colorado
Englewood 1

-1

Cherry Creek 5

-1

Widefield 3

-1.7

Fountain 8

-1.7

Falcon 49

-1.8

Charter School
Institute

-2.1

Harrison 2

-2.7

Adams 12 Five Star
Schools
State of Colorado

Multiracial Students

Harrison 2

+4.8

Englewood 1

+2.4

+6.1

Harrison 2

-6.4

Pueblo County
70
Widefield 3
Cheyenne
Mountain 12

+1.6

Platte Valley RE-7

-6.6

Fountain 8

-6.7

State of Colorado

+2.4
+2.3
+2.2
+2

Garfield 16

-1.1

Adams 12 Five Star
Schools

Manitou Springs 14

-1.6

Trinidad 1

-7.3

Byers 32J

-1.5

Archuleta County 50 JT

-9.4

Ellicott 22

-1.7

Denver County 1

English Language Learners

Colorado students bring a rich linguistic
diversity to the classroom. Over 128,000
students speak 251 home languages other than
English between them; 88% speak Spanish.
While the number of emerging multilingual
students who are learning English (English
Language Learners or ELLs) increased over the
past five years by 4.1 percent, the proportion
statewide of ELL students stayed relatively
consistent at 14.2 percent. The vast majority of
ELLs (over 70 percent) live in the Denver Metro
Area.2 ELL populations are significantly larger
in a number of Colorado districts including
Adams 14 (43%), Westminster 50 (41%), Adams
Arapahoe 28 (Aurora) (39%), Sheridan 2 (38%),
and Lake County (36%).
Colorado Department of Education. “Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
Learners in Colorado: State of the State” (2015)
2

+1.1

District

-2

Byers 32J

+0.8

-44.6

Figure 5: Districts with the Largest Changes in
Proportion of Emerging Multilingual Students Learning
English (percentage points) 2011-2015
Roaring Fork RE-1
33.2% ELL

5.2

Eagle County RE 50
33.8% ELL

-4.1

Denver County 1
31.6% ELL

-4.5

Fort Morgan RE-3
28.6% ELL

-4.5

Mapleton 1
29.8% ELL

-5.5

Monte Vista C-8
10.2% ELL

-6
-6

-4.5

-3

-1.5

0

1.5

Change in Proportion

3

4.5

6

Not Pictured Above: Byers 32J authorizes several multi-district online schools which accounts for a drastic increase in
ELL enrollment (23.9 percentage points) over the past five years: Colorado Digital Academy (beginning in 2014), Colorado
Virtual Academy (previously authorized by Adams 12, authorized by Byers starting in 2014), Elevate Academy (starting in
2104), and Great Plains Academy (beginning in 2012).

7

 K-12 ACHIEVEMENT

THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Climbing to New Heights?

Student Achievement in Colorado Districts

Colorado school districts are diverse in their
student populations and performance. Despite
this diversity, Colorado’s constitution requires
the “establishment and maintenance of a
thorough and uniform system of free public
schools.” The following section looks at
student achievement outcomes and begs the
question to what extent are our public schools
providing a thorough and uniform education to
every student? Are school districts improving
outcomes for kids? Which systems are the most
equitable, providing students, regardless of
their background, an equal likelihood as their
peers to be college and career ready?

a state have determined to be important
standards.

With the adoption of the Colorado Academic
Standards In 2009, Colorado set new
expectations for what students should learn
at each grade level across ten subjects.
While Colorado has a twenty year history
of measuring student mastery of content
standards with standardized assessments, 2016
was only the second time Colorado students
took CMAS PARCC, an assessment specifically
aligned to these higher standards in English
Language Arts and in Math. This assessment
informs our understanding of where students
are or are not in fact learning what we as

The data presented on the next few pages
raise the following questions:

This summative assessment data is but one
indicator of student performance. By no means
does it exhaustively answer what is going
on in certain school systems. And it certainly
does not answer how education happens
or is experienced in individual schools. The
data should catalyze all of us to look at
these systems to ask what is working, not
working, and why. Educators, communities,
and policymakers alike should be reflecting,
learning, and sharing practices.

» Which districts have made big improvements
over the past four years in getting more
students to meet grade-level standards that
will prepare them for college and career?
Which districts have fallen off the mark in
fulfilling this promise?
» In which districts are students outperforming
their peers in districts serving similar
students? Where are students underperforming relative to similar districts?

Flying Blind? The Case of the Missing Data

The data collected through the statewide assessment system has one primary purpose: learning.
It should expose what is working, direct inquiry, and share lessons across the state. The data—
and the successes it can uncover— should be informing improvement strategies for schools and
districts across the state, so that they can deliver the high-quality education our students deserve.
Unfortunately, this mission has become increasingly more difficult to achieve. The Colorado
Department of Education masks much of the data where student populations are small. In 2015,
CDE also introduced new suppression rules for CMAS PARCC achievement data, whereby the
department masks all information if fewer than four students either did or did not meet the
expectations of the test. This has meant that an additional 6 percent of district level proficiency
data and 9 percent of school level proficiency data is masked due to suppression rules other
than the small cohort rule. All told, 36 percent of 2016 school and district level proficiency data is
masked. Privacy has come at the expense of a clear understanding of how students, schools, and
districts are doing.
In addition, due to the complications of the new suppression rules, the Department has not
released any information about whether or not specific groups of students met expectations on
the exam. This means it is impossible to compare performance of students of different races or
ethnicities, or of students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. And that is a problem. It
is no secret that the education system has historically been worse for students of color and
low-income students than their white and more affluent peers. Yet Colorado has reverted back
to a system where we are flying blind. This report explores what publicly available information
exists on student performance. It creates proxies to measure how districts are serving low-income
students, emerging multilingual students, and students in special education. Yet these cannot
replace the invaluable information that Colorado used to provide that helped schools, districts,
and communities identify and address opportunity gaps between students, and work to provide an
equitable education to every student who stepped inside a Colorado school.
8

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Who is Reading, Writing, and Doing Math at Grade Level

Are there systems
for illuminating and
sharing lessons
learned across
districts?

Since 1997, Colorado has administered a
summative assessment to measure what
students know. Starting in 2015, Colorado
shifted tests from TCAP/CSAP to CMAS PARCC.
Because these are two separate tests, the
results cannot be directly compared. In order
to understand how schools and districts were
doing from one year to the next, A+ conducted
a percentile analysis that measured relative
rankings of each district and school based
on percent of students meeting grade level
standards on each test. For more information
see Appendix B. The charts on the following
page show those districts with the biggest
changes in relative performance between 2013
and 2016.

Spotlights
Some Districts With Many Low Income
Students Made Big Gains
A variety of districts have made large gains
in the percentage of students reaching
proficiency benchmarks in multiple subject
areas and school levels. Of particular note is
the state’s largest district: Denver, which in 2013
was consistently in the 15th to 20th percentile
across subjects, has moved closer to the state
average, landing in the 43rd percentile in
Elementary English Language Arts (ELA), the
41st percentile in Elementary Math, and the
56th percentile in Middle School ELA.
Fort Morgan, a district of over 3,000 students,
saw similar improvements to Denver in
academic performance, with the percent of
students meeting grade level standards at or
above the state average in Elementary Math
and Middle School ELA. Also impressively,
Platte Valley, a district in Weld County with just
over 1,000 students, moved from percentile
ranks in the bottom third to half of the state in
2013 to now ranking in the top quartile.
3 Colorado Revised Statute. 22-30.7-102
4 James L. Woodworth, Margaret E.
Raymond, Kurt Chirbas, Maribel
Gonzalez, Yohannes Negassi, Will
Snow and Christine Van Donge,
“Online Charter School Study 2015,”
Center for Research on Education
Outcomes (CREDO), Stanford
University (2015): i-104.

Questions in Low Performing Districts
There are several districts that have struggled
to help students master grade level standards.
For districts with relative declines in students
meeting grade level standards compared to the
rest of the state, has the shift to new standards
been more difficult or not fully implemented?
Is there sufficient support for students who are

struggling? Are teachers supported? Are school
improvement strategies in place? For districts
where fewer students are mastering content
than in similar districts, are there systems for
sharing practices across districts? What is the
state’s role in ensuring that these districts are
supporting students to reach proficiency?
A Case Against Some Online Schools?
Byers 32J authorizes four multi-district online
schools: schools that provide “full-time
education… primarily through online digital
learning.”3 Multi-district online schools, while
authorized by a single entity (a school district,
or state authorizer), may serve students across
the state of Colorado. Indeed, Byers authorized
schools serve over 2500 students from 107
different school districts.
Student performance in Byers 32J and
Colorado Digital BOCES mirrors significant
research on the impact of online schools.4
Not only do online schools have lower
academic results than comparable brick-andmortar schools, but online schools tend to
have a negative impact on their students
when compared to students from similar
backgrounds and with similar past academic
performance. Dramatic drops in the proportion
of students mastering grade level standards
when compared to the rest of the state, and
substantially lower performance than districts
serving similar students, continues to challenge
the value of these particular school options.
Highlighting Participation
Participation is key to identifying and sharing
best practices, as well as ensuring equitable
access to a high quality education. The federal
Every Students Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires
95% of students participate in statewide
assessments. In 2015, participation rates in
Colorado dropped dramatically, particularly in
higher grades. Participation rates improved in
2016 due to legislation passed reducing testing
time and other adjustments. Yet pockets of low
2016 participation rates in specific grades and
schools threatens our ability to gauge student
achievement. This is particularly true in higher
grades. Ensuring assessments are relevant (for
example, college-entrance aligned), results
are timely, and the information is accessible,
can improve the impact and meaningfulness of
Colorado’s assessment program.
9

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

<3,000
students

Figure 6: Districts with Big Changes in Relative Performance in Elementary
English Language Arts 2013-2016
100

Percentile Rankings

District Size
Key:

+28
+41

50

-39

-28

+31

+36

+26

0

-58

+28

25

2013 Ranking
2016 Ranking

Valley
Re-1

Platte
Valley
Re-7

0

Weld
County
Re-3J

Denver
County 1

Buena
Vista R-31

Lamar
Re-2

Byers
32J*

Manitou Johnstown9
Springs Milliken
Re-5J
14*

Figure 7: Districts with Big Changes in Relative Performance in Elementary
Math 2013-2016
Percentile Rankings

100

25,000-39,999
students

Declining

75

3,000-9,999
students

10,000-24,999
students

Improving

Improving

Declining

75

-34

+35

50
+44

+27

+38

+38

-86

-49

+32

-41

-36

25
0

40,000-79,999
students

2013 Ranking
2016 Ranking
0

Weld
County
Re-8

Lamar Widefield Platte
Re-2 3
Valley
Re-7

Weld
Fort
Trinidad Garfield
Morgan County Byers 1
Re-2
Re-3J 32J*
Re-3

Johnstown- Aspen 12
Milliken
1
Re-5J

Figure 8: Districts with Big Changes in Relative Performance in Middle School
English Language Arts 2013-2016
>80,000
students
*Districts with less than 80%
participation in given grade
level and content area. These
results may or may not be
representative of the broader
student population.

Percentile Rankings

100

Improving

Declining

+31

+34
50
+41

+33

-27

-32
+25

+37

-41
-33

+31

25

0

-25

+23

75

-29

2013 Ranking
2016 Ranking

Denver
County 1

Roaring Trinidad 1 Ellicott Platte
Weld
Valley
County Fork
22
Re-7
Re-1
Re-1

Fort
Estes Valley Buena Bayfield Archuleta Manitou Windsor
Morgan Park Re-1
Vista 10JT-R County
Springs Re-4
Re-3
R-31
50 JT
R-3
14*

10

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Who is Bucking the Trend?
The state has yet to release information about
different student groups’ achievement in
2016. This information is incredibly important,
as many groups of students—low income
students, students with disabilities, students
learning English as a second language—get
left out of the best educational opportunities
the state has to offer. This contributes to
the well-documented correlation between
economic advantage and student achievement.
To uncover districts that buck this trend, A+
conducted an analysis to compare district
performance to other districts with similar
student demographic populations, creating
a District Demographic Index based on the
population of students qualifying for Free or
Reduced Price lunch, the proportion of students
learning English as a second language, the
proportion of students with disabilities, and
the rate of students moving in and out of the
district. The following charts show the districts
that perform outside of the trend. For the
explanation of the methodology and selection
see Appendix C.

Spotlights
Some Districts with Many Low-Income
Students Buck Trends
A district demographic analysis draws attention
to school systems that buck trends based on

the students they serve. While there is a strong
correlation between students’ backgrounds
(including family income, race and ethnicity,
home language, and students with disabilities)
and academic performance, there is significant
variability in outcomes for students across
schools and districts.
Steamboat Springs and East Grand 2, both
smaller districts, serving approximately
2,500 and 1,300 students respectively, have
significantly higher proportions of students
meeting grade level standards than other
districts with similar student demographics: the
proportion of students reaching grade level
standards is 15 to 20 percentage points higher
than similar districts.
It is not just low poverty districts that achieve
outlier results for students. Harrison 2 in
Colorado Springs also significantly bucks the
trend. Harrison serves a large proportion of
students qualifying for free or reduced price
lunch, emerging multilingual students (ELLs),
special education students, and has a more
mobile student population; the proportion
of elementary students in Harrison meeting
grade level expectations in English Language
Arts is 15 points higher than similar districts.
Other districts with higher proportions of at-risk
students that also show signs of bucking
demographic trends are Fort Morgan, Ellicott 2,
Weld County S/D Re-8, Denver, and Delta.

11

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 9: The Outliers: Elementary School English Language Arts Percent of Students who Met
Grade Level Standards Compared to Districts with Similar Demographics (2016)

Figure 10: The Outliers: Elementary School Math Percent of Students who Met Grade Level
Standards Compared to Districts with Similar Demographics (2016)

12

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 11: The Outliers: Middle School English Language Arts Percent of Students who Met Grade
Level Standards Compared to Districts with Similar Demographics (2016)

Note: Districts included on chart fall
well outside the trend line and serve
at least 1,000 students. For more
information about the methodology,
see Appendix C.

13

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Who is Making Headway Year Over Year?
Information about proficiency rates helps guide
inquiry about whether schools and districts
are successfully helping students reach grade
level expectations. However, students start at
very different places in terms of their mastery
of grade-level standards at the beginning of
a school year. The Colorado Growth Model is
critical to understanding whether students are
making progress or falling behind their peers.
Growth provides an important measure of
whether schools are delivering value regardless
of whether or not students enter the year on,
above, or behind grade-level.
Growth is calculated by comparing a student’s
performance on the assessment to her
academic peers—other students who had the
same test score the previous year, resulting
in the individual student growth percentile. A
school or district is measured by the median
growth percentile (MGP) of all its students in
a given subject. The following charts explore
where students of different racial and ethnic
backgrounds, and students from different
family income levels, are progressing on the
state assessment relative to their peers. This
information is particularly important given
that the most recent school and district-level
proficiency data—the number and percent of
students who have mastered content previously
explored in this report—is not publicly available
for different groups of students. In districts with
small cohorts of specific student groups, each
student’s performance carries more weight than
in larger groups of students. This is important
to keep in mind when reviewing and asking
questions of the data.
The following charts explore the districts
with the highest and lowest median growth
percentiles for different groups of students. It is
clear that some districts are greatly accelerating
the learning of some students relative to their
academic peers. Growth is critical to getting
students on the path to mastering grade-level
content. However, where students are behind,

as we see in many districts and schools,
growth must be higher to ensure students
can catch up to grade-level expectations. As
a guidepost, based on this 2016 data, roughly
fifteen percent of all Colorado schools had a
median growth percentile of 65 or above, or
“exceeded expectations” on growth on the
state performance framework; roughly fifteen
percent of all Colorado schools had a median
growth percentile of 35 or below, or “does not
meet expectations” on growth on the state
performance framework. These are important
scores to keep in mind while exploring growth
results for different groups of students across
the state.

Spotlights
Gaps in Growth
Across subjects white students and students
ineligible for free or reduced price lunch are
more likely to show growth than students of
color and students eligible for free or reduced
price lunch. What these growth gaps show
then is that schools and districts continue to
underserve students of color and low-income
students. These students are simply not
mastering as much content as their white and
more affluent peers.
Of course, there are exceptions to this trend.
East Grand 2 and Platte Canyon have median
growth percentiles of 60 for their free and
reduced price lunch students in English
Language Arts and Math respectively. And
while the student populations are small, black
students show the highest growth in Fort
Morgan and Lewis Palmer. Multiracial students
post some of the highest growth percentiles
and showed higher growth than their white
peers in Roaring Fork, Cheyenne Mountain,
Delta, Durango, and Summit.

14

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 12: Growth by Race or Ethnicity: CMAS PARCC English Language Arts (2016)
Districts with the Highest Growth (MGP)
State MGP for Student Group
Districts with the Lowest Growth (MGP)

Black Students

71.5

Fort Morgan Re-3
Lewis-Palmer 38
Harrison 2
Academy 20
Pueblo County 70
State of Colorado
Douglas County Re 1
Boulder Valley Re 2
Adams County 14
Thompson R2-J
Byers 32J

64
58
55
53
48
37
35.5
32
31
16

Latinx Students

72

East Grand 2
Platte Canyon 1
Trinidad 1
Durango 9-R
Steamboat Springs Re-2
State of Colorado
Montezuma-Cortez Re-1
Aspen 1
Colorado Digital BOCES
Byers 32J
Manitou Springs 14

63
60
60

67

48
36
35.5
35
34
32.5

White Students

65
65
64
63
63

Denver County 1
East Grand 2
Steamboat Springs Re-2
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Trinidad 1
State of Colorado
Garfield Re-2
Johnstown-Milliken Re-5J
Bennett 29J
Colorado Digital BOCES
Brush Re-2(J)
Manitou Springs 14

51
38
38
36
35
32
30.5

Multiracial Students

73
71.5
71
67.5
65.5

Roaring Fork Re-1
Durango 9-R
Summit Re-1
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Cañon City Re-1
State of Colorado
Englewood 1
Eagle County Re 50
Mesa County Valley 51
Valley Re-1
Moffat County Re-1

51
44.5
40
40
39
28
0

25

50

75

100

Median Growth Percentile
15

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 13: Growth by Race or Ethnicity: CMAS PARCC Math (2016)
Districts with the Highest Growth (MGP)
State MGP for Student Group
Districts with Lowest Growth (MGP)

Black Students

64
60.5
60.5

Lewis-Palmer 38
Littleton 6
Fort Morgan Re-3
Mesa County Valley 51
Widefield 3
State of Colorado
Adams County 14
Greeley 6
Westminster Public Schools
Thompson R2-J
Byers 32J

57
56
46

32
29.5

38.5
37
35.5

Latinx Students

59
58
58
57
56
56
56

Fort Morgan Re-3
Platte Canyon 1
Valley Re-1
Weld County S/D Re-8
Woodland Park Re-2
Salida R-32
Widefield 3
State of Colorado
Adams County 14
Manitou Springs 14
Lake County R-1
Byers 32J
Colorado Digital BOCES

46
37
37
36
29

33

White Students

Steamboat Springs Re-2
Littleton 6
Denver County 1
Buena Vista R-31
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Roaring Fork Re-1
State of Colorado
Englewood 1
East Otero R-1
Lake County R-1
Adams County 14
Byers 32J
Colorado Digital BOCES

65
63
62
62
62

70.5

53
41
41
41
38
36
31

Multiracial Students

66
64
63
62.5
60

Roaring Fork Re-1
Littleton 6
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Delta County 50(J)
Johnstown-Milliken Re-5J
State of Colorado
Colorado Spring 11
Garfield Re-2
Montrose County Re-1J
Greeley 6
Adams County 14

51
46
42
41
37.5
27
0

25

50

75

100

Median Growth Percentile
16

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 14: Growth by Free or Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility: CMAS PARCC
English Language Arts (2016)
Districts with the Highest Growth (MGP)
State MGP for Student Group
Districts with the Lowest Growth (MGP)

Students Eligible
for Free or Reduced
Price Lunch

62

East Grand 2
Trinidad 1
Woodland Park Re-2
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Summit Re-1
State of Colorado
Montezuma-Cortez Re-1
Johnstown-Milliken Re-5J
Colorado Digital BOCES
Byers 32J
Manitou Springs 14

58
57
57
57
47
37
36
35
33
29.5

Students Ineligible
for Free or Reduced
Price Lunch

74

Trinidad 1
East Grand 2
Durango 9-R
Steamboat Springs Re-2
Denver County 1
State of Colorado
Johnstown-Milliken Re-5J
Garfield Re-2
Bennett 29J
Colorado Digital BOCES
Manitou Springs 14

67.5
66
65
64
52
40.5
40
37
36
32
0

25

50

75

100

Median Growth Percentile

Figure 15: Growth by Free or Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility: CMAS
PARCC Math (2016)
Students Eligible
for Free or Reduced
Price Lunch

Districts with the Highest Growth (MGP)
State MGP for Student Group
Districts with the Lowest Growth (MGP)
64

Platte Canyon 1
Fort Morgan Re-3
Steamboat Springs Re-2
Salida R-32
Woodland Park Re-2
Buena Vista R-31
State of Colorado
Adams County 14
Lake County R-1
Montezuma-Cortez Re-1
Byers 32J
Colorado Digital BOCES

59
59
57
57
57
46
37
36
36
31.5
28

Students Ineligible
for Free or Reduced
Steamboat Springs Re-2
Price Lunch
Littleton 6

71
66
66

Weld County S/D Re-8
Buena Vista R-31
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Roaring Fork Re-1
State of Colorado
Garfield Re-2
Sheridan 2
Byers 32J
Adams County 14
Colorado Digital BOCES

62
62
62
53
42
41.5
40
36
35
0

25

50

75

100

Median Growth Percentile
17

 COLLEGE/CAREER READINESS

THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Manifest Destiny:

Who is Prepared for College, Career and Life?
The goal of our elementary and secondary
education system should be to ensure that all
students are prepared to succeed in college,
career, and life. High school diplomas matter,
but research shows that postsecondary
education and credentials are increasingly
critical for employment and earning a living
wage today.

this rate or better. This report focuses on four
year graduation rates as it is the goal of the
vast majority of schools and districts across
the state to support students to complete
high-school within this time-frame. This also
reflects the expectations set for students across
the country through the federal legislation.

Colorado school districts have made significant
progress in supporting more students to
obtain a high school diploma. The four-year
graduation rate in Colorado improved from
73.9% in 2011 to 77.3% in 2015. Some districts
have made even greater strides in getting
students that cap and gown.
Figure 16: Districts with Improved
Four-Year Graduation Rates (2011-2015)
District
Colorado Digital Boces

Percent point improvement
54

Sheridan 2

39

Garfield Re-2

25

Monte Vista C-8

18

Mapleton 1

13

Adams 12 Five Star Schools

12

Adams-Arapahoe 28J

11

Brush Re-2(J)
Archuleta County 50 JT

10

Durango 9-R

10

Eaton Re-2

The following charts explore the districts that
are excelling at ensuring students receive
a high school diploma, and those districts
where students need more support to
reach that milestone, by groups of students.
There continue to be large disparities in the
background of students who make it to a
graduation ceremony. The guideposts set by
both the federal government and Colorado
are helpful in understanding the magnitude of
success, and some of the gaps we see.

11

9

Denver County 1

9

Harrison 2

8

Pueblo City 60
Charter School Institute

8
8

What are the right expectations for graduation
rates, particularly given the significant progress
Colorado has made?
A few attempts have been made to help
navigate and set expectations. The most
recent federal legislation, the Every Student
Succeeds Act, requires states to focus efforts
on improving schools with four-year graduation
rates less than 67%. Colorado uses a “best-of”
4, 5, 6, or 7- year graduation rate for its
accountability system. The state of Colorado
has set the bar for exceeding expectations at
the 95% best-of graduation rate because the
top 15 percent of schools in Colorado achieve

Spotlights
Improved Statewide Graduation Rates Leave
Some Groups Of Students Out
Graduation rates have improved across
the state, enough such that the Colorado
State Board of Education decided to adjust
expectations in the accountability system to
reflect the improvement. In Colorado, half of all
schools have at least a 93.9% graduation rate.
Fifteen percent of schools have at least a 99.3%
graduation rate.
And yet, not all groups across the state and
within districts make it to graduation at these
high rates. While the data looks at four year
graduation rates, as opposed to best-of
graduation rates like the accountability system,
it is clear that many students are not receiving
the support they need to graduate on time. And
it is critical that these diplomas are meaningful
and that they communicate what students know
and can do. There is not a single district that
serves more than 1,000 students that meets the
“exceeds expectations” graduation benchmark
for Black students, or students qualifying for
free or reduced price lunch.

18

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Notable Graduation Trends for Black Students
A couple districts were close to reaching
the “exceeds expectations” graduation rate
benchmark for black students: in 2015, St. Vrain
Valley Re 1J and Fountain 8 had graduation
rates for black students at 93% and 90%
respectively. Cherry Creek 5, the district with
the largest graduation base of black students
other than Denver County 1, tied for the 5th
highest graduation rate (84%) for black students
amongst school districts in Colorado. St. Vrain
Valley, School District 27J Boulder Valley, and
Jefferson County R-1 were amongst the top five
graduation rates for black students in 2015,
having improved upon their 2011 graduation
rate for those students by 16, 21, 24, and 11
percentage points respectively.

High school
diplomas should
be meaningful
and connected
to a student’s
achievement.

A Few Outliers Serving Colorado’s Growing
Latinx Population
Three districts cleared the exceeds expectations benchmark for Latinx students. Statewide
only 68% of Latinx students graduated on time
in 2015. Yet in Eaton (24% Latinx students),
Archuleta (27% Latinx students), and Platte
Valley (34% Latinx students) that narrative was
turned on its head with graduation rates of 97%,
96% and 96% respectively.
Colorado Springs Districts Bucks the Trend for
English Language Learners
Three Colorado Springs area school districts—
Lewis-Palmer 38, Widefield 3, and Harrison
2—had some of the highest graduation rates
for students learning English. They had
2015 graduation rates of 91%, 86%, and 85%
respectively for their emerging multilingual
students.
Eaton Re-2, though it has a small population of
emerging multilingual students learning English,
graduated all ten of their students in that cohort
in 2015.
Empty Graduation Ceremonies
Several districts have low graduation rates
for all students. Specifically, graduation
rates in Charter School Institute, Mapleton,
Englewood, Westminster 50, Falcon 49, and
Adams 14 fall significantly below expectations

for multiple groups of students in 2015. Within
this group variable progress has been made
in boosting these graduation rates in the
past five years. For example, Mapleton has
seen big gains in graduation rates for Asian
students, black students, Latinx students, and
emerging multilingual students; Westminster
has improved for black students, and students
with disabilities, has made little progress for
Latinx students, and has seen declines in the
graduation rate of white students; Falcon has
seen a declining graduation rate for all groups
of students.
A Pause on Graduation Rates for Students
with Disabilities
Students with disabilities represents a set of
students with incredibly diverse learning needs:
data is not reported separately for students with
mild-moderate learning disabilities and students
with severe learning disabilities. Some students
might be best supported in a center-based
program that serves them until they age out at
age 21. Other students, especially students with
mild needs, should be able to graduate on-time
with the right supports. Given the variability in
learning needs, we cannot derive much from
the graduation rate of students with disabilities,
but it is an important group of students and we
would be remiss to exclude the information.
Make Sure Diplomas are Meaningful
A high school diploma is incredibly valuable
for students. Employment rates are higher,
wages are higher, upward economic mobility
is more likely, and health outcomes are better
for high school graduates than their peers who
don’t receive a diploma. However, high school
diplomas should be meaningful and should
communicate that students have received a
high quality education that has taught them
to think critically, problem solve, and be ready
for their next steps after college and career
readiness. Graduation rates are arguably the
easiest metric of school success to improve.
As such, it is critical that gains in graduation
rates are linked to comparable gains in student
achievement.

19

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 17: Highest and Lowest Graduation Rates by Race or Ethnicity (2015)
Black Students

Highest Graduation Rates
Lowest Graduation Rates

St Vrain Valley Re 1J
Fountain 8
School District 27J
Boulder Valley Re 2
Cherry Creek 5
Jefferson County 1
State of Colorado
Adams-Arapahoe 28J
Colorado Spring 11
Mapleton 1
Charter School Institute
Englewood 1

State Graduation Rate by Student Group
93%
90%
88%
85%
84%
84%
70%
62%
55%

45%
41%

25%

Latinx Students

97%
96%
96%
94%
91%
91%

Archuleta County 50 JT
Platte Valley Re-7
Eaton Re-2
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Manitou Springs 14
Ellicott 22
State of Colorado
Adams-Arapahoe 28J
Valley Re-1
Salida R-32
Colorado Digital Boces
Falcon 49
Englewood 1
Charter School Institute

68%
55%
55%
55%

42%
42%
40%
32%

White Students

98%
96%
96%
96%
95%
95%

Summit Re-1
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Lewis Palmer 38
Aspen 1
Eaton Re-2
Roaring Fork Re-1
State of Colorado
Westminster 50
Colorado Digital Boces
Mapleton 1
Charter School Institute
Englewood 1

83%
57%
57%
55%
53%
51%

Multiracial Students

100%
100%
96%
96%
92%
92%

Windsor Re-4
Montrose County Re-1J
Lewis Palmer 38
Academy 20
Douglas County Re 1
Boulder Valley Re 2
State of Colorado
Englewood 1
Woodland Park Re-2
Adams-Arapahoe 28J
Mapleton 1
Charter School Institute

80%
64%
55%
53%
50%

0%

25%

43%
50%

75%

100%

Graduation Rate
20

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 18: Highest and Lowest Graduation Rates for Emerging Multilingual
Students (2015)
Highest Graduation Rates
Lowest Graduation Rates

State Graduation Rate by Student Group

100%

Eaton Re-2
94%

Brush Re-2(J)

91%

Lewis Palmer 38

86%

Widefield 3

85%

Harrison 2

85%

Sheridan 2
61%

State of Colorado
Adams-Arapahoe 28J

47%

Valley Re-1

45%

Englewood 1

41%

Falcon 49

34%

Charter School Institute
0%

22%
25%

50%

75%

100%

Graduation Rate

Figure 19: Highest and Lowest Graduation Rates for Students Eligible for Free
or Reduced Price Lunch (2015)
Highest Graduation Rates
Lowest Graduation Rates

State Graduation Rate by Student Group
91%

East Grand 2

91%

Eaton Re-2

90%

Archuleta County 50 JT

90%

Cheyenne Mountain 12

88%

Platte Valley Re-7
State of Colorado

66%

Valley Re-1

54%

Colorado Digital Boces

52%

Englewood 1

43%

Falcon 49

41%

Charter School Institute

32%
0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Graduation Rate

Figure 20: Highest and Lowest Graduation Rates for Students with Disabilities
(2015)
Highest Graduation Rates
State Graduation Rate by Student Group
Lowest Graduation Rates

100%

Archuleta County 50 JT
92%

Aspen 1

88%

Summit Re-1
81%

Steamboat Springs Re-2

80%

Manitou Springs 14
State of Colorado

54%

Denver County 1

37%

Adams-Arapahoe 28J

35%

Falcon 49

33%

Chater School Institute

30%

Platte Canyon 1
0%

27%
25%

50%

75%

100%

Graduation Rate
21

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Who is Opening Doors for Graduates?
High school diplomas should be a ticket to a
career or college. Not all students will choose a
four-year college or university after high school,
but all should have the opportunity. All students
should be prepared to enter the workforce or a
training program after high school. After all, by
2025 seventy percent of jobs in Colorado will
require some additional training or education
after 12th grade.
The ACT assessment provides insight into how
well students are prepared for college and
career. Colorado requires all students to take
the ACT during their junior year. While Colorado
will shift to the SAT beginning in Spring 2017,
the importance of a college admissions score
is clear as it often acts as a gatekeeper to
higher education. For example, 75% of admitted
students at Metro State University in Denver
score at least an 18 out of 36 on the ACT. At the
University of Colorado-Boulder 75% of admitted
students score at least a 24. Too many Colorado
students are excluded from these institutions
because they have not developed the skills and
knowledge, as measured by the ACT, through
their time in the K-12 education system.
The charts on the following pages show districts
with the highest and lowest average ACT
composite scores (a combination of scores
in English, Math, Reading, and Science) for
different groups of students.
For reference, a school with an average ACT
composite score of less than 17 would earn a
“does not meet” on the state accountability
framework. An average score of 20 “meets
expectations.” An average composite
score above 22 would earn an “exceeds
expectations” on the state accountability
framework.

Spotlights
An Opportunity Chasm
The opportunity gap for students of color
and low income students is well documented
across a variety of educational data. Looking at
information about success on the ACT, which
is rarely presented for different groups of
students, underscores this reality.

There is no district where the average ACT
composite score for black students is over 22.
There is no district where the average score
for students qualifying for free or reduced price
lunch is over 22. There is only one district that
reaches this bar for Latinx students. And their
white peers? There is no district where the
average score for that group of students is
below 17. Nor for multiracial students. And only
two districts have average scores below 17 for
students who are ineligible for free or reduced
price lunch.
College Readiness in Colorado Springs Area
Districts
Districts in Colorado Springs have some of the
highest average composite ACT scores across
student groups. Academy 20 has some of the
highest scores for black students and Latinx
students. Cheyenne Mountain 12, Lewis-Palmer
38, and Academy 20 have the three highest
average ACT scores for Latinx students. Those
three districts, joined by neighboring Manitou
Springs 14, had some of the highest scores
for students eligible for free or reduced price
lunch. Cheyenne Mountain 12 and Lewis-Palmer
38 also had some of the highest average
composite ACT scores for white students and
students ineligible for free or reduced price
lunch. Lewis-Palmer 38 also had one of the
highest average scores for multiracial students.
College Readiness in Suburban Communities
In addition to the Colorado Springs area
suburban districts, including Academy 20,
Lewis Palmer 38, and Cheyenne Mountain 12,
other districts in suburban communities had
some of the highest average composite ACT
scores across student groups. The five districts
with the highest average composite ACT scores
for black students are all urban-suburban
districts. The same is true for Latinx students,
white students, and multiracial students.
The exception to this trend is Aspen 1 which
appears on the top districts for Latinx and
white students. In fact, with the exception of
two outlying towns, Aspen and Estes Park, all
districts with the highest average composite
ACT scores across student groups are
urban-suburban districts.

22

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

The School-Level Story
Which schools do the best job of opening
doors for their students after graduation? A
look at average school level ACT scores shows
schools that offer students a greater chance of
accessing higher education opportunities.
A few schools appear in the top ten schools
by highest average composite ACT score
for multiple groups of students. Two DSST
campuses in Denver County appear in the
top ten: DSST: Green Valley Ranch for black
students and students eligible for free or
reduced price lunch, and DSST: Stapleton High
School for black students, Latinx students,
White students, and for both students eligible
and ineligible for free or reduced price lunch.
Cherry Creek High School ranks in the top ten
for black students, white students, multiracial
students, and students ineligible for free or
reduced price lunch. D’velyn Junior/Senior
High School in Jefferson County ranks in the
top ten for Latinx students (with a 27.4 average
composite ACT score it is significantly higher
than any other school for Latinx students), white
students, and students ineligible for free or
reduced price lunch.

Four Cherry Creek 5 high schools (Cherry
Creek High School, Grandview High School,
Cherokee Trail High School, and Eaglecrest
High School) are amongst the top schools for
highest average composite ACT scores for
black students. Four high schools in Jefferson
County 1 (Evergreen High School, Dakota Ridge
Senior High School, Ralston Valley Senior High
School, and Green Mountain High School)
have amongst the highest average composite
ACT scores for students eligible for free and
reduced price lunch.
Gaps at the School Level
DSST: Green Valley Ranch is the only school
in the state where black students are scoring
at least an average of 22 on the ACT. That is
one school out of nearly 500 high schools in
Colorado. Compare that to white students.
There are over 90 schools in the state where
white students score an average of at least 22,
and white students score an average of 26 or
above at the ten schools with the highest ACT
scores for that group of students.

23

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 21: ACT Scores by Race or Ethnicity (2016)
Highest Average Composite ACT Scores
Lowest Average Composite ACT Scores

State Composite ACT Score by Student Group

Black Students

19.2
19
18.8
18.7
18.5

Poudre R-1
Academy 20
Adams 12 Five Star Schools
Cherry Creek 5
Jefferson County R-1
State of Colorado
Falcon 49
Adams-Arapahoe 28J
Colorado Springs 11
Greeley 6
Pueblo City 60

17.4
16.7
16.7
16.4
15.6
14.8

Latinx Students

22
21.5
21
20.3
20.1

Cheyenne Mountain 12
Lewis-Palmer 38
Academy 20
Aspen 1
Douglas County Re 1
State of Colorado
Boulder Valley Re 2
Sheridan 2
Westminster 50
Moffat County Re 1
Ignacio 11 JT

17.7
16.1
15.7
15.7
15.2
15.1

White Students

25.1
25.1
24.1
23.7
23.6

Cheyenne Mountain 12
Aspen 1
Lewis-Palmer 38
Boulder Valley Re 2
Cherry Creek 5
State of Colorado
Weld County Re-1
Westminster 50
Weld County S/D Re-8
Ellicott 22
Adams County 14

21.9
17.9
17.9
17.8
17.6
17.4

Multiracial Students

24.4
24.3
23.7
23.3
22.7

Littleton 6
Lewis-Palmer 38
Thompson R2-J
Adams 12 Five Star Schools
Boulder Valley Re 2
State of Colorado
Fountain 8
Colorado Springs 11
Harrison 2
Adams-Arapahoe 28J
Widefield 3

21.4
20
19.6
19.5
19.3
18.2
0

12

24

36

ACT Score
24

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 22: ACT Scores by Free or Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility (2016)
Highest Average Composite ACT Scores
Students Eligible
Lowest Average Composite ACT Scores
for Free or Reduced
Price Lunch
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Lewis-Palmer 38
Manitou Springs 14
Estes Park R-3
Academy 20
State of Colorado

Students Ineligible
for Free or Reduced
Price Lunch

State Composite ACT Score by Student Group
21.6
20.4
20.1
19.9
19.6
17.6

Roaring Fork Re-1
Adams County 14
Lamar Re-2
Sheridan 2
Westminster 50

16.2
16.1
16
15.9
15.9
25.1
24.6
24.1

Cheyenne Mountain 12
Aspen 1
Boulder Valley Re 2

24
23.5

Lewis-Palmer 38
Poudre R-1
State of Colorado
Monte Vista C-8
Weld County Re-1

21.8
17.8
17.7
17.6

Weld County S/D Re-8
Westminster 50
Adams County 14

16.9
16.7
0

12

24

36

ACT Score

25

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Figure 23: Schools with Top Ten Average ACT Scores by Student Group
Top Ten Schools for Black Students by Average
ACT Composite Scores (2016)

Top Ten Schools for Latinx Students by Average ACT
Composite Scores (2016)

School
DSST: Green Valley
Ranch High School
DSST: Stapleton High
School
Cherry Creek High
School
Grandview High
School

School
D'velyn Junior/Senior
High School
Denver School Of
The Arts
Ralston Valley Senior
High School
Jefferson Academy
High School
Air Academy High
School
Discovery Canyon
Campus High School
Thunderridge
High
ThunderRidge High
School
School
Palmer Ridge High
School
Rock Canyon High
School
DSST: Stapleton
High School

Liberty High School
Cherokee Trail High
School
Eaglecrest High
School
Harrison High School
Thomas Jefferson
High School
Sand Creek High
School

District
Denver
County 1
Denver
County 1
Cherry
Creek 5
Cherry
Creek 5
Academy
20
Cherry
Creek 5
Cherry
Creek 5
Harrison 2
Denver
County 1

Average ACT

Falcon 49

18.1

23.2
21.7
21.4
20.1
19.8
19.5
18.9
18.7
18.5

District
Jefferson
County R-1
Denver
County 1
Jefferson
County R-1
Jefferson
County R-1

Average ACT
27.4
23.1
23.1
23

Academy 20

22.5

Academy 20

22.4

Douglas
County Re 1
Lewis-Palmer
38
Douglas
County Re 1
Denver
County 1

22.4
22.3
22.2
21.9

Top Ten Schools for White Students by Average
ACT Composite Scores (2016)

Top Ten Schools for Multiracial Students by
Average ACT Composite Scores (2016)

School
The Vanguard
School (High)
DSST: Stapleton
High School
Liberty Common
Charter School
Ridgeview Classical
Charter Schools
D'evelyn Junior/
Senior High School
Peak To Peak
Charter School
Evergreen High
School
Telluride High
School
Cherry Creek High
School
George Washington
High School

School
Fairview High
School
Palisade High
School
Legend High
School
Cherry Creek High
School
Littleton High
School
Arapahoe High
School
Fossil Ridge High
School
Grandview High
School
Fruita Monument
High School
Air Academy High
School

District
Cheyenne
Mountain 12
Denver
County 1

Average ACT
29.1
28.9

Poudre R-1

28.1

Poudre R-1

27.5

Jefferson
County R-1
Boulder
Valley Re 2
Jefferson
County R-1

26.4

Telluride R-1

26.2

Cherry
Creek 5
Denver
County 1

27.4

26.3

26
26

District
Boulder Valley
Re 2
Mesa County
Valley 51
Douglas
County Re 1

Average ACT

Cherry Creek 5

25.1

Littleton 6

24.8

Littleton 6

24.6

Poudre R-1

24.2

26.2
25.8
25.3

Cherry Creek 5

24

Mesa County
Valley 51

24

Academy 20

23.6

Top Ten Schools for Students Eligible for Free or
Reduced Price Lunch by Average ACT Composite Scores (2016)

Top Ten Schools for Students Ineligible for Free or
Reduced Price Lunch by Average ACT Composite Scores (2016)

School

School

District
Cheyenne
Mountain 12

21.2

The Vanguard School
(High)
Liberty Common
Charter School
D'evelyn Junior/Senior
High School
Ridgeview Classical
Charter Schools
DSST: Stapleton High
School
Peak To Peak Charter
School

21.1

Fairview High School

Evergreen High School
DSST: Green Valley
Ranch High School
DSST: Stapleton High
School
Rock Canyon High
School
Dakota Ridge Senior
High School
Ralston Valley Senior
High School
Monarch High School
Norwood Public
Schools
Fossil Ridge High
School
Green Mountain High
School

District
Jefferson
County R-1
Denver
County 1
Denver
County 1
Douglas
County Re 1
Jefferson
County R-1
Jefferson
County R-1
Boulder Valley
Re 2
Norwood R-2J

Average ACT
25.9
22.3
22.2
22.1
21.4

21.1

Poudre R-1

21

Jefferson
County R-1

21

28.2

Poudre R-1

28

Jefferson
County R-1

27.7

Poudre R-1

27

Cherry Creek High
School

Denver
County 1
Boulder
Valley Re 2
Boulder
Valley Re 2
Jefferson
County R-1
Cherry
Creek 5

Telluride High School

Telluride R-1

Evergreen High School

Average ACT

26.7
26.6
26.1
26
26
25.3

Would reach the “exceeds expectations” cut point on the State Accountability Framework (the 85th percentile of all schools)

26

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

What Happens Beyond K-12?
Setting students up for success is a key goal of
the education system, and a path to a two- or
four-year postsecondary institution is better
traveled in some districts. The following tables
show the districts where the highest percentage
of graduates matriculate to two- or four-year
higher education institutions, and the proportion
of those students who need remedial classes
in at least one subject when they get there.4
Remedial coursework is high school-level work
and is non-credit bearing, meaning students
have to pay for these classes that do not count
toward a degree.

Spotlights
A Clearer Path to College in Districts that Set
Students Up for Success
There is a clear relationship: those districts
where the largest percentage of their graduates
Figure 24: Highest Matriculation Rates
(Class of 2014)
Highest Matriculation Rates

Lewis-Palmer 38
Littleton 6
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Douglas County Re 1
Valley Re-1
Steamboat Springs Re-2
Boulder Valley Re 2
Academy 20
Aspen 1
Summit Re-1
Trinidad 1

75.2%
72.9%
72.5%
70.9%
70.5%
70.1%
69.3%
68.7%
68.6%
68.3%
67.7%

Figure 25: Lowest Matriculation Rates
(Class of 2014)
4 Matriculation data was provided by
the Colorado Department of Higher
Education (CDHE). Unlike some CDHE
reports which just include matriculation to public Colorado institutions,
the matriculation data included in this
report includes matriculation to public
and private institutions both within
and outside Colorado, as tracked by
the National Student Clearinghouse.
Remediation data was gathered from
CDHE. The remediation rates included
only capture students enrolled at
public institutions. The district-level
data was also aggregated from
publicly available school-level data,
some of which is masked due to small
class sizes. The remediation data
is thus an estimate, but important
bellwether in understanding college
readiness.

Lowest Matricluation Rates
Weld County S/D Re-8
Falcon 49
Adams-Arapahoe 28J
Lake County R-1
Mapleton 1
Westminster 50
Englewood 1
Sheridan 2
Ellicott 22
Adams County 14

40.7%
38.8%
38.5%
37.1%
37.0%
33.9%
31.0%
30.9%
30.0%
27.1%

matriculate to a higher education institution,
also tend to have low remediation rates. In fact,
half of the districts in the ten districts with the
highest matriculation rates also have the lowest
remediation rates in the state. Conversely, half
of districts with the lowest matriculation rates
in the state also have the highest remediation
rates. What this suggests is that students from
these districts often cannot access higher
education, and when they do, they are often
unprepared for the work.
There are opportunities for better pathways
in these districts and scaffolded support to
ensure students are ready to succeed in higher
education settings. An important location for
this work could be Trinidad 1 which has both the
eleventh highest matriculation rate in the state,
and the highest remediation rate.

Figure 26: Highest Remediation Rates
(Class of 2014)
Top Remediation Rates

Trinidad 1
Weld County Re-1
Westminster 50
Fremont Re-2
Adams County 14
Monte Vista C-8
Lake County R-1
Englewood 1
Weld County S/D Re-8
~
Canon
City Re-1

69.4%
68.9%
65.4%
64.7%
64.1%
60.0%
60.0%
59.0%
58.5%
54.4%

Figure 27: Lowest Remediation Rates
(ClassLowest
of 2014)Remediation Rates

Bennett 29J
Elizabeth C-1
Lewis-Palmer 38
Strasburg 31J
Summit Re-1
Valley Re-1
Estes Park R-3
East Grand 2
Cheyenne Mountain 12
Aspen 1

18.5%
18.1%
16.2%
16.0%
15.5%
15.3%
14.7%
13.6%
13.3%
10.0%

Both highest matriculation rate and
lowest remediation rate
Both lowest matriculation rate and
highest remediation rate

27

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Conclusion
The Outliers is a report intended to raise
questions by providing a foundation of
information about what is happening in
Colorado school districts. School district
leaders, local boards of education,
the state board of education, and
policymakers across the state should be
taking a hard look not only at local student
achievement, but at trends across the
state. There are clear cases of success
and improvement across the state where
more students are receiving the promise
of a high quality education. But these
successes are not consistent enough, nor
do they reach enough students. To ensure
high quality education is the norm across
the state, A+ recommends the following:
Build an improvement culture
Across the state, education stakeholders,
including educators, district leaders,
policymakers, and communities, should
be focused on continuous improvement
within the district, asking questions
about what is working well for students,
and what is not working for students.
A culture of improvement means there
is a commitment to deep investigation
about challenges within schools, and
about potential solutions aligned to those
challenges.
Share information and be transparent
Transparency about student and
school performance with families and
communities is important for a number
of reasons. First, every family deserves
to find the best educational fit for their
child. That means that families should
understand how schools are serving
students, and whether students in the
school are likely to meet grade-level
standards.
Second, better transparency with families
and communities can lead to more
community-driven strategies for school
improvement. Schools are more likely
to meet community and student needs
when families are empowered to define,
advocate for, and hold policymakers and

school leaders accountable for meeting
student needs.
Ensure lessons are learned
Questions can only be asked, solutions
can only be understood, if there is
information about both the problem, and
the strategies for improvement. But the
state has taken major steps back in the
amount of information about student
performance that is publicly available by
masking data about performance in small
schools, suppressing additional results,
and not releasing disaggregated data
about student groups. If made available,
this information can be transformational
for educators and communities alike.
Keep equity front and center
It is critical to focus attention on
discrepancies in educational opportunities
both within schools districts— between
schools, regions, groups of students—
and between school districts. As a state,
policymakers, educators, district leaders,
and communities should be concerned
about which students access advanced
coursework, show greater growth, and
reach academic expectations.
There should be concern about where
academic opportunity is segregated.
There should be equal awareness of
places that are closing achievement gaps,
and serving students who have historically
been left out of educational opportunities,
like students from low-income families and
students of color, as well as their more
affluent and white peers.
We hope this report sparks questions, and
ultimately contributes to a foundational
conversation about how to ensure every
student in Colorado receives an excellent
education.

28

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Appendix A: Colorado District Map

RANGELY RE-4

DE BEQUE 49JT

MESA COUNTY VALLEY 51

WEST END RE-2

NORWOOD R-2J

MANCOS
RE-6
DURANGO 9-R

TELLURIDE
R-1

GARFIELD
RE-2

BAYFIELD
10 JT-R

SILVERTON 1

OURAY
R-1

RIDGWAY R-2

MONTROSE COUNTY
RE-1J

DELTA COUNTY 50(J)

PLATEAU VALLEY 50

GARFIELD
16

MEEKER RE1

MOFFAT COUNTY
RE NO 1

DOLORES RE-4A

DOLORES COUNTY RE NO.2

MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ
RE-1

IGNACIO
11 JT

HAYDEN
RE-1

ROARING FORK
RE-1

STEAMBOAT
SPRINGS
RE-2

SOUTH ROUTT
RE 3

POUDRE R-1

ESTES PARK
R-3

WESTMINSTER 50

MAPLETON 1

SHERIDAN 2

JEFFERSON
COUNTY R-1

WOODLAND
PARK
RE-2

GREELEY
6

PAWNEE RE-12

WIGGINS
RE-50(J)

PRAIRIE RE-11

FORT
MORGAN
RE-3

BYERS 32J

WELDON
VALLEY
RE-20(J)

BRIGGSDALE RE-10

WELD COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT
RE-3J

PLATTE
VALLEY
RE-7

EATON RE-2

AULT-HIGHLAND
RE-9

WINDSOR
RE-

WELD
COUNTY
RE-1
WELD
COUNTY
S/D RE 8

STRASBURG
31J

BRUSH
RE-2(J)

REVERE
SCHOOL
DISTRICT

HAXTUN
RE-2J

YUMA 1

JULESBURG
RE-1

HOLYOKE
RE-1J

WRAY RD-2

BURLINGTON
RE-6J

IDALIA RJ-3

BETHUNE
R-5

LAMAR RE-2

VILAS
RE-5

HOLLY
RE-3

WALSH
RE-1

GRANADA
RE-1

PLAINVIEW RE-2

CHEYENNE COUNTY RE-5

STRATTON
R-

LIBERTY J-4

HI-PLAINS
R-23

OTIS R-3

LONE STAR
101

FRENCHMAN
RE-3

District Border
County Border

PLATEAU RE-5

VALLEY RE-1

BUFFALO
RE-4J

AKRON R-1

ARICKAREE
R-2

ARRIBA-FLAGLER
C-20

EADS RE-1

MC CLAVE
RE-2

PRITCHETT
RE-3

SPRINGFIELD
RE-4

WILEY
RE-13 JT

KIT CARSON R-1

LAS ANIMAS
RE-1

GENOA-HUGO C113

WOODLIN R-104

LIMON
RE-4J

DEER TRAIL 26J

AGATE 300

BIG SANDY 100J

KARVAL RE-23

CHERAW
31

CROWLEY COUNTY
RE-1-J

MANZANOLA 3J

ROCKY
FORD
R-2

SWINK
33

KIM REORGANIZED
88

CAMPO RE-6

Produced by the Colorado Department of Education Web Management Team - April, 2014

EAST OTERO R-1

BRANSON
REORGANIZED 82

HOEHNE
REORGANIZED 3

FOWLER R-4J

EDISON
54 JT

MIAMI/
YODER 60 JT

CALHAN
RJ-1

KIOWA C-2

BENNETT
29J

SCHOOL
DISTRICT 27J

SCHOOL D STRICT 27J

ADAMS
COUNTY 1

ADAMSARAPAHOE
28J
ENGLEWOOD 1

CHERRY CREEK 5
LITTLETON 6
ELIZABETH
C-1

ELBERT 200

PEYTON
23 JT

FALCON 49

ELLICOTT
22

HARRISON 2

HANOVER 28

FOUNTAIN 8

CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 12

WIDEFIELD
3

MANITOU
SPRINGS COLORADO
SPRINGS 11
1

ACADEMY
20

LEWIS-PALMER 38

DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1

DENVER
COUNTY
1

ST VRAIN VALLEY
RE 1J

JOHNSTOWNMILL KEN
RE-5J

THOMPSON R2-J

Colorado School District Map

EAST GRAND 2

ADAMS 12
FIVE STAR SCHOOLS

BOULDER VALLEY RE 2

G LPIN
COUNTY
RE-1

CLEAR CREEK
RE-1

PLATTE CANYON 1

PARK COUNTY RE-2

SUMMIT RE-1

NORTH PARK R-1

WEST GRAND 1-JT.

EAGLE COUNTY RE 50

ASPEN 1

LAKE COUNTY
R-1

BUENA VISTA R-31
CRIPPLE
CREEK-VICTOR
RE-1

CANON CITY RE-1

FREMONT
RE-2

PUEBLO
CITY
60

TRINIDAD
1

AGUILAR
REORGANIZED 6

PUEBLO COUNTY 70

HUERFANO RE-1

PRIMERO
REORGANIZED 2

LA VETA
RE-2

CUSTER COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT C-1

COTOPAXI
RE-3

MOFFAT 2

ALAMOSA RE-11J

SANFORD
6J

CENTENNIAL R-1

SIERRA GRANDE R-30

SANGRE DE CRISTO
RE-22J

SALIDA R-32

MOUNTAIN VALLEY RE 1

CENTER 26 JT

SARGENT
RE-33J

NORTH CONEJOS RE-1J

MONTE VISTA
C-8

DEL NORTE C-7

GUNNISON WATERSHED RE1J

HINSDALE COUNTY
RE 1

CREEDE
SCHOOL DISTRICT

ARCHULETA COUNTY 50 JT
SOUTH CONEJOS RE-10

29

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Appendix B: Percentile Analysis
The A+ percentile analysis in the Outliers
report compares the relative performance of
districts on previous and current tests: TCAP
2013 and 2014, and CMAS PARCC 2015 and
2016. The analysis includes results from
Elementary English Language Arts, Elementary
Math, and Middle School English Language
Arts. Secondary math is not included given
that students can choose between subject
specific tests and are not necessarily
comparable. High School English Language
Arts is not included given low participation
rates in many districts.
Methodology
Percentile ranks compare districts on the
basis of the percent of students who met the
grade-level benchmark (level 4 and above on
PARCC; meets or exceeds expectations on
TCAP) in a particular test and grade range on
the 2013 TCAP, 2014 TCAP, 2015 PARCC, and
2016 PARCC assessments.
Grades were grouped as follows:
- 3-5 (elementary students)
- 6-8 (middle school students)
This analysis relied on publicly available
data. The Colorado Department of Education
implemented additional data suppression rules
in 2015 and 2016. These rules include:
- Minimum n-size = 16 (no reporting on cohorts
of students with fewer than 16 students)
- Minimum cell-size = 4 (no reporting when a
single cell, or the difference between valid
scores and results cell, is less than 4)
For the 2016 analysis of PARCC scores, results
from specific grades were included only if a)
there were more than 15 valid scores, and
b) results of the valid scores were reported.
In 2015, results were included when a) there
were more than 15 valid scores, b) results of
the valid scores were reported or results could
be estimated (this change in methodology in
2015 to 2016 is due to changed reporting rules
from the Colorado Department of Education).

Calculation of percent of students at
benchmark:
PARCC (Math and English Language Arts) and
TCAP Math:
N students at benchmark
% of students
at benchmark =
N valid scores

TCAP Reading and Writing (combined to
provide a better comparison to 2015 PARCC
English Language Arts exams):
TCAP Reading and
Writing % at benchmark =

(N students at benchmark in Reading +
N students at benchmark in Writing)
(N valid scores Reading +
N valid scores Writing)

Selection Criteria for Inclusion as an Outlier
For each subject area, A+ calculated the range
of percentile changes from 2013 to 2016.
Districts with sufficient data from TCAP 2013
and PARCC 2016 were included.
“Outliers” were selected to be highlighted in
the report if the percentile rank change was
greater than one standard deviation from the
average change. Those cut points are listed
below:
Elementary English Language Arts
Average Percentile Change 2013-2016: 1.8
Standard Deviation (based on range of district
percentile change 2013-2016): 22.8
Elementary Math
Average Percentile Change 2013-2016: -0.5
Standard Deviation (based on range of district
percentile change 2013-2016): 27.5
Middle School English Language Arts
Average Percentile Change 2013-2016: -1.1
Standard Deviation (based on range of district
percentile change 2013-2016): 23.8
While the percentile analysis, and change in
percentile ranks, was calculated using the full
set of districts with available data, A+ included
only districts with an enrollment greater than
1,000 students in the reporting set.

30

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

Appendix C: District Demographic Analysis
Methodology
To better compare like-districts based on their
demographics, every district was assigned a
District Demographic Score. This methodology
mirrors closely what Denver Public Schools
uses to compare similar schools, and is based
on research of student factors that are often
correlated to academic performance on
standardized tests. The Index was calculated
according to the following formula:
District
Demographic =
Index

(40% X proportion of students
qualifying for free or reduced
price lunch)
+ (20% X proportion of
emerging multilingual students
(ELL))
+ (20% X proportion of students
receiving special education
services)
+ (20% X district mobility rate)

A+ then produced a correlation between
student performance in the district (percent
of students meeting grade-level standards on
PARCC 2016) and the District Demographic
Index. Those correlations are below:
Correlation: Elementary English Language Arts
and District Demographic Index
r= -0.6
R2= .36

Correlation: Middle School English Language
Arts Performance and District Demographic
Index
r= -0.5
R2= .25
Selection Criteria for Inclusion as an Outlier
To identify “Outliers,” A+ compared actual
performance in a district to the correlated
value based on the District Demographic Index
and performance in districts across the state.
A+ calculated the range of the discrepancy
between actual and correlated performance,
and identified those districts that performed
at least 0.8 standard deviations from the
correlated value; 30-40% (depending on the
subject area and grade level) of districts were
identified as “Outliers,” falling outside the
trend line.
While the district demographic analysis, and
correlation to performance, was calculated
using the full set of districts with available
data, A+ included only districts with an
enrollment greater than 1,000 students in the
reporting set.

Correlation: Elementary Math Performance and
District Demographic Index
r= -0.5
R2= .27

31

 THE OUTLIERS, 2016

ABOUT A+ COLORADO
The mission of A+ Colorado is to sharpen public education by
building public will and advocating for the changes necessary to
dramatically increase student achievement in schools and districts in
Colorado. We are an independent, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization
working to bring the power of data and research to challenge
ourselves, educators and policymakers to rethink public education.
© 2017
A+ Colorado
All rights reserved.

A+ Colorado
1390 Lawrence St, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80204

Email: admin@apluscolorado.org
Tel: 303.736.2549
www.apluscolorado.org

32