Schools struggle to account for most vulnerable kids

Colorado tallying method leads to major undercounts

BY ERICA BREUNLIN THE COLORADO SUN

Colorado school districts receive extra funding based on the number of at-risk students they educate — those students living in poverty who could struggle in school as a result. But the way the state accounts for all students who are considered at-risk has long been riddled with problems that only worsened with the pandemic.

Two of the core issues: Colorado’s method for tallying its most vulnerable students has led to signi cant undercounts, particularly in the past few years during COVID-19, and the way the state de nes its at-risk student population is too narrow to capture all students facing hardship that could hinder their ability to thrive in classes.

at’s why a working group convened by the Colorado Education Commissioner Katy Anthes under legislation that passed last year set out to overhaul the way the state de nes its most vulnerable students and introduce a more well-rounded approach to counting them. eir progress stopped short of adopting a new formula, which the legislation required them to do. at means school district counts of at-risk students will likely remain lower than the number that would truly re ect all students from backgrounds that challenge their academic success.

at also translates to serious economic consequences for districts, which will receive less state funding next year based on those undercounts as they try to provide targeted resources and additional support to their neediest students.

“I think it probably just means another year of status quo for at-risk students where we are relying on a system that we know is not ideal and probably is not accounting for all the students who experience economic disadvantage” and would bene t from more resources at their school, said Leslie Colwell, vice president of youth success initiatives at the Colorado Children’s Campaign and a member of the working group.

“ ere’s no way around it at this point,” Colwell added. “I think moving to this new factor will yield a better, more accurate, more holistic count, but I think the state really wants to get it right because we are going to be I think the only state doing it this way. And so (it’s) not ideal, but I do think that that extra time could bene t us in the long run.”

Colorado’s system for tracking its at-risk students revolves around a single metric: the number of kids who qualify for free or reducedprice lunch, which has long been a federal indicator of poverty. But that method is awed and persistently undercounts its students grappling with the greatest needs.

Part of the problem is a program known as Community Eligibility Provision, which gives schools and districts the ability to provide free school meals to all their students if a certain percentage of their kids bene t from government assistance programs, such as the Supplemental e number of counted at-risk students started to rise this year. But after Colorado voters in November approved a school meals program that will feed all students — known as the Healthy School Meals for All program — families again won’t see much of a reason to submit forms to their school.

Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. at discourages families from lling out free and reducedprice lunch forms, which districts need to show the state how many of their students qualify as at risk. e pandemic only added to schools’ struggle to collect free and reduced-price lunch paperwork from families as kids shifted to remote learning and families were no longer going to school to drop o the paper forms, Colwell said. Meanwhile, the federal government swooped in to give all students, regardless of their family’s income, access to free school meals for two years, further disincentivizing families from completing free and reduced-price forms.

As a result, the state’s recorded population of at-risk students dropped dramatically during the pandemic, even as families were still struggling to make ends meet.

Additionally, using free and reduced-price lunch eligibility as the sole driver to measure students living in poverty severely restricts the scope of kids who can be considered at risk. Colwell describes it as a “onedimensional measure” that only looks at a student’s family income. It “ignores the other factors that are economic or social that we know are really important to student need,” she said.

An income threshold dictates who quali es for free and reducedprice lunch. Families whose income