GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

early word

September 2, 2009

Just two F’s amid nearly straight A’s on 2009 progress reports

by , at 12:33 pm

Just two schools got F’s on their progress reports this year, bearing out reports that Schools Chancellor Joel Klein would tout high scores when he released this year’s grades today.

Eighty-four percent of elementary and middle schools earned A’s, up from 38 percent last year, promising to stir up questions about how useful the progress reports are for parents and principals.

A few other highlights: Of the lowest-performing schools, most opened under Klein’s watch. Nearly 5 percent of schools earned so much extra credit for helping their neediest students that their scores exceeded 100 percent. And the schools that the city tried to close last year before being thwarted by a lawsuit all earned A grades.

Klein is offering his interpretation to reporters right now at a press conference, and we’ll bring updates from there later in the day. For now, take a look at the complete list of progress report grades and add your observations to mine:

  • Ten of the 12 schools with the lowest raw scores opened since Klein became chancellor in 2002. The two schools that received F’s are Washington Heights Academy, which opened in 2004, and Harlem Link Charter School, which opened in 2005. This was the first year the schools had enough test results to give them progress reports.
  • PS 8, the popular school in Brooklyn Heights that made news last year when it received an F on its progress report, not only got an A this year but was one of the most improved schools in the city, with a score that rose by more than 70 points over last year.
  • The largest score drop in the city happened at the Harlem Children’s Zone Promise Academy Charter School, which got 90.6 points on last year’s progress report but earned just 56.5 points on this year’s report, giving it a B.
  • The three schools that the UFT and parent leaders sued to keep open saw their scores rise by an average of 54 points. PS 194 and PS 241 in Harlem both went from D’s to A’s, and PS 150 in Brooklyn got an A after receiving an F last year.
  • Nearly 50 schools scored more than 100 points according to the progress reports formula, which awards extra credit to schools where especially needy students get higher scores on the state tests.
  • PS 123, the Harlem school that’s embroiled in a battle with the Harlem Success Academy charter school over space, received an A on the report. It received a B last year. Harlem Success did not get a progress report grade because last year was the first time its students took state tests.
  • KIPP AMP, the charter school where teachers voted to unionize last year, received the lowest score of any of the city’s four KIPP schools. It was the 65th-lowest-scoring city school, more than 600 places behind the next-lowest-scoring KIPP school, KIPP STAR.

Here’s the spreadsheet with each school’s scores from this year and last year. (Download an Excel file with the grades here.)

Print Print
  • Mr G

    Who will be held accountble for creating a rating system that has evolved into a total joke? In my own district, schools that are terrible and dangerous scored A’s, while the most highly regarded middle school, the one where parents beg to get into, received one of the lowest scores of midle schools in the District.

  • Ellen McHugh

    “Eighty-four percent of elementary and middle schools earned A’s, up from 38 percent last year”

    That’s an awful big jump….especially in a City that is pushing Charters as an option for failing schools. How will the charter schools find neighborhoods where there is a persistent failure? Isn’t that the reason for placing charter schools in well defined areas?

    Should we cheer? should we wonder? is this the miracle we have waited for? or is this a case of lies, damed lies and statistics?

  • Michael M.

    Mr G, I wonder how much of that has to do with which “peer groups” the schools are in. Which is better: a bad school showing improvement, or a G&T school that can’t keep showing further “progress?”

    By the time Bloomberg’s running for round FOUR, all schools will be be deemed A-worthy and the theme will be, “Don’t Mess With Success.” Shouldn’t be too hard to get to 100%, when we’re at 84% now. Sheesh.

  • Michael M.

    EM,
    I met a mom yesterday who’s happy her daughter is in a Bronx charter. I asked her what she liked about it. Her first comment: Only 15 per class, with more than just the teacher to boot. We chatted. Creaming, “lotto” to get in, lifeboats on the Titanic, etc. At one point, I said that charters get criticized for not taking their fair share of Special Ed and IEP kids. Her response: We don’t have any. And that there is pressure to leave if the kids don’t keep up grades.

    Turning lead into gold gets easier, with cold fusion.

  • Pingback: Gotham Gazette - The Wonkster » Blog Archive » (Almost) Straight A Schools

  • http://ljohnson562@charter.net Linda/Retired Teacher

    I hope some group (teachers’ union, University) asks that these scores be reviewed and replicated in a carefully controlled study. Too many decisions are being made on the basis of test scores that may, or may not, be legitimate.

  • http://teachthemoment.blogspot.com John

    I hate to go all conspiracy theory here, but is anyone really surprised that the DOE is giving themselves good marks in the midst of an election cycle for the “education mayor”? It just seems to me that if it wasn’t this it would be something else.

  • inexile

    To paraphrase Garrison Keiler, “New York City, where all (or at least most
    of) the schools are above average.”

  • http://ljohnson562@charter.net Linda/Retired Teacher

    I am not surprised that the DOE is giving themselves mainly good marks, but I am surprised that no one is really challenging it. Are there laws that allow citizens to challenge possible lies told by government agencies? How about the Freedom of Information Act? This would be a great project for a law student.

  • Pogue

    I think Bloomberg outlawed the act of challenging things. Anyone caught challenging or questioning anything he or Klein say or do get sent to the Rubber Room or are not provided thousands of quiet donation dollars for their “non-profit”.

  • http://ljohnson562@charter.net Linda/Retired Teacher

    Well, we certainly don’t expect a teacher to challenge him (unless she’s 65 and about to retire!) but surely there is an organization who would want to do it. After all, a whole educational infrastructure is being built on the basis of test scores that might not be valid! What about the Center for Fair and Open Testing? This organization might be the one to help. Ill write to them today.

    Never underestimate the power of a schoolteacher, especially one who is close to retirement. I was quite pleased with the responses I got to my complaints to the police, the state and the federal government.

  • EFM

    I spent nearly two years searching for the best school for my child. I went through all the DOE statistics, visited the schools, spoke with teachers and parents. I was able to rank the schools from best preforming to worst, and now I am told by this report that all are worthy of the same grade. This is a travesty. It makes “school choice” a sham.

  • Michael M.

    EFM,
    I would note that in many parts of town, the zoned schools are full, and the neighboring zones’ schools are full, plus we still believe in preference for zoned kids (which I support) when they “choose” their own zoned school though that also undercuts the broader concept of “school choice.”

    But first, DOE would have to build enough seats and provide enough capacity so that it’s not effectively DOE’s choice, but the parents’. So far, I haven’t seen the push-back from either the PEP or the City Council on this front.

    When it comes to capacity, Tweed’s in the sardine business not the seat business, unless they’re providing public school buildings to charters which can boast of small class sizes.

    We need more capacity — as well as meaningful school performance reports — to make “school choice” anything more than a soundbite which translates to “charter or non” in many neighborhoods.

  • http://themortonschool.blogspot.com Miss Eyre

    What would we think of a class in which 84% of students received “A” grades?

  • Dissenter

    I have been following this issue pretty closely, and if I do recall, the first year there were grades given to my son’s school there was huge criticism that the Progress Reports valued absolute progress rather than relative progress (to wit, a school got better grades if it has absolute high percentages of students proficient on state tests as opposed to lots of students who were improving on them) and so now the reports are weighted more to students who are IMPROVING versus absolute performance. There was also criticism that the parent survey didn’t carry enough weight. That was also changed. Now that these changes have been implemented, you folks are now harping that things are too easy. What gives here? Damed if you do and damned if you don’t? I hope they keep issuing these progress reports because it is clear that some folks will never be satisfied and just need a reason to complain, like most New Yorkers.

  • Michael M.

    Dissenter,
    If I may lend a hand…
    I think you’re cornfusing the “performance” metric (test scores) with the “progress” metric (more or less than one year’s progress in one year’s time).

    The first year of the School Progress Reports already included effectively TWO years of scores.

    What changed was that last year, the weight on progress increased and the weight on performance decreased over the prior inaugural year — exactly the opposite of what I and a number of others had requested, though Liebman said he made that change in response to parent input.

  • yomister

    “I met a mom yesterday who’s happy her daughter is in a Bronx charter. I asked her what she liked about it. Her first comment: Only 15 per class, with more than just the teacher to boot. We chatted. Creaming, “lotto” to get in, lifeboats on the Titanic, etc. At one point, I said that charters get criticized for not taking their fair share of Special Ed and IEP kids. Her response: We don’t have any. And that there is pressure to leave if the kids don’t keep up grades.

    Turning lead into gold gets easier, with cold fusion.”

    I’m the former author of nycpublicschoolblue and worked for the DOE for four years. I’m currently running the special education department for a well known and high performing charter school (middle grades through high school). I can assure you that my caseload is just slightly shy of the DOE average for a community school. Charters are state mandated to accept special education students. Although we have limited “settings” due to our small size, we accept absolutely every single child with an IEP that is gains admission through our (state/city mandated) lottery. Yes. Every single IEP student.

    Whereas it is true that the NYC DOE may not “place” students in charters, upon lottery admittance, all students with an IEP will receive services. Although I thought I was well versed in special education prior to working in my school, nothing can compare to the wide variety of disability types that I presently service. Yes, many do come from 12:1:1 and we work closely with our parent as they transition (upon parent consent) to a general education setting. Many quickly adapt to the strict code of conduct, and a few take longer. but we are relentless in providing our students will all related services, many (many) more hours of instruction, and finding the appropriate accommodations that will allow them to achieve. Presently, I have 7 categories of disability represented amongst this population.

    My office is subject to multiple audits, both internal and by our state charter authorizer – yes, our authorizer maintains close oversight of compliance, and that oversight is valued by our teaching community. We work with students with stunning academic deficiencies, yet have no modified promotions. It takes exceptional effort, but students are making excellent gains. The highly structured environment has proven quite beneficial (as has the MUCH longer school day).

    No charter school may discriminate against a child with a disability. We certainly don’t.

    Thanks,
    yomister!

  • Michael M.

    yomister,
    Your blog is fantastic. I am glad you stuck with teaching, and especially special ed, and I understand why you switched employers.

    I accept that the Special Ed allegation is not applicable at your school. But per prior GS coverage I understand it is an issue for charters city-wide, in general, though contested.

    Please comment here more often.

    Bon soir, Mr. B.

  • Ellen McHugh

    What’s with people using nom de plumes and not real names? is everyone afraid?

  • Ellen McHugh

    rather, noms de plume, sorry aobut that.

  • Michael M.

    I was struck by that out of over 1,000 schools, ONLY 2 got F’s. So methinks… either more schools deserved F’s, or these two were wild anomalies. So I went agooglin.

    Preliminary observations, but STILL…

    Both “F” schools have highly unusual Progress Report detail in the Progress metric section, weighted a crazy 65%, that needs to be vetted. (I’d include the links, but have developed an aversion to “moderation.” Google NYC DOE and the school name. Go to the school’s DOE portal, then go to “statistics.”)

    How is it possible to score OUTSIDE a peer group or city wide spectrum as both of these schools do on many “Progress” metrics? Are they not members of their own peer group? Are they not members of the citywide pot? Shouldn’t these then redefine the range?

    This resulted in what I believe to be unintended NEGATIVE contributions to the tallies.

    Just to beat this dead unicorn further: How is it possible that at HLCS, on ELA, Level 1 and Level 2 kids “progress” 0.10 Levels and get a -19% depth charge, but Level 3 and Level 4 kids “progress” 0.09 Levels — LESS — and get a whopping 100% gold star?

    More importantly to me — but worth only 25% weight to DOE — note further that on the “Performance Metric,” HLCS got a B, a *BEE* I tells ya, and WHA a C.

    Yo! Office of Accountability! Got QA/QC !?! Need a QB?

  • Michael M.

    More, similar to above, but re Brooklyn’s PS8, and in more detail to highlight the erratic variability:

    In 2006-2007, the school got an overall C.
    In 2007-2008, the school got an F.
    In 2008-2009, the school got an A.

    Can anyone tell me what they did differently between the first and second rounds to drop from a C to an F, and second and third years to improve from an F to an A?

    Now let’s look at the Performace metric only, and only against the city-wide spectrum (no peer group). Note that cycle 1 to 2 is steady, and cycle 2 to 3 shows marked improvement:
    In 2006-2007, 60th – 64th percentile, all 4 metrics spanning ELA and Math.
    In 2007-2008, 54th – 65th percentile.
    In 2008-2009, 71st – 80th percentile.

    Congratulations are well deserved on the roughly 10 – 15 point jump in 2008-9.

    But what of the peer group effect? Hellooooo Yo-Yo!
    In 2006-7, ELA only, 66% of the kids scored Level 3 or 4. That put them in the 28th peer group percentile.
    In 2007-8, ELA only, 67% of the kids scored Level 3 or 4. Same, no? But in THIS year’s peer group (possibly different given the “peer index” changed), that was only good for the 13th percentile (and implicitly, a big hit to “progress.” In fact, a big zero — bottom of the applicable peer range.) And contributed to a “D” in the performance section. This despite this metric being in the 60th percentile citywide — surely not “D” country, more likely a “B” per the following year’s curve.
    And in 2008-9, same peer group as 2007-8, ELA only, 79% scored Level 3 or 4. That put them at the 57th percentile in peer group (though 77th! city-wide.) Good for a “B”. But that then gave them related contributions of OVER 100% on two related progress lines!

    Another angle:
    In the first cycle, the school got 42% of the available “performance” points. In the second cycle, only 26%. THIS DESPITE IDENTICAL ACTUAL RAW SCORE “PERFORMANCE” ON THE CITYWIDE SCALE.
    Then, in the third cycle, 61% of available “performance” points, good for a “B.” Yet the 78% raw score (kids scoring Level 3 or 4) would earn an “A” if it were lettered via the “overall” cut points.

    This is a grading system only Lewis Carroll should love. One year a red pill, one year a blue pill. And down the rabbit hole we go.

  • Dissenter

    Methinks you are a little too involved with these Progress Reports. They are made for parents not for researchers and fanatics.

  • UWSDad

    I have reviewed my child’s Progress Report and it is accurate. At his middle school, MS 243, almost all the kids scored a Level 3/4 this year so I would expect his school to get an “A.” Two years ago the school received a “D.” So I think the reports have had the desired effect. I’m disappointed but not surprised at the people claiming these reports are some kind of election year stunt. Fortunately, parents have more confidence in the abilities of their children.

  • Michael M.

    Dissenter,

    Are you happy as long as DOE gives itself A’s? Your tax dollars at work.

    Ironically, it is the PARENTS who want to see meaningful differentiation — the original promise. Now we have moving goalposts, ostensibly to a threshhold type system. “You get an A if your kids got 3′s or 4′s.” Even that wouldn’t justify as many A’s, btw.

    UWSDad,
    Just curious if you thought your school’s D was well-deserved two years back? If so, what magic method did the school use to improve? (e.g. Swap out principal? A flock of teachers? Longer days? More test prep? Just kidding on all.)

    I share your confidence in the abilities of all of our children. More than in those in charge of such a RANDOM and/or INFLATED grading system.

    To whit: Your school scored in the 110th percentile citywide of kids who got a 3 or 4 on ELA this year (whatever the heck THAT means). But in the “D” year, two laps back, it was “only” the 99th percentile. Sheesh. Your school deserves its A. But are you willing to put your child in a random school of the other 85% that ALSO got A’s? I sure wouldn’t.

  • UWSDad

    Michael M: MS 243 has the same principal as 2 years ago. She’s been there for decades. I think MS 243 began to take test scores more seriously than they used to honestly, especially after they got a D. The children are very bright, hard working and motivated as they were two years ago, but I don’t think the principal or faculty took the standardized tests serious before the annual grades came about. Now they do. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing. And we parents like our school a lot. More than 90% of us are happy with the education our children are receiving. So you can say the DOE “gave itself As” but I don’t see it that way. I’m very happy with the grade my child’s school received.

  • Michael M.

    UWSDad,
    No need to defend your excellent school.

    Again, what part of 99th percentile and “D” go together? Whether there was an “emphasis” on test prep then or not, clearly the kids were already scoring high.

    Again, what is the meaning of being in the 110th percentile in anything?

    Again, were you happy with the “D” two years ago?

    Please join me in dropping your defense of a bogus grading system, just because it got yours right… eventually.

  • Fort Tryon Teacher

    UWSDad, as far as I know, MS 243 (The Center School) is an absolutely great school, one of the best in the city, and it deserves an A. But you should notice the small print at the top of the progress reports, under the heading, “How did this school perform?”: The Center School was in the 54th percentile this year, according to the DOE’s measurements. Last year, it was in the 97th percentile. The previous year, it was in the 11th percentile. The scores are all over the map and do not reflect the strong academic program and stable environment that the Center School has had for three years. Nobody’s saying the Center School isn’t a great school. We’re just saying the progress report is a totally unreliable way of showing that. Aaron Pallas’s post, “Randomness Is Not a Fluke,” speaks to the reasons for this.

    Michael M., you’ve got me–I have no idea how a school can be in the 114th percentile of anything.

  • Michael M.

    FTT,
    The benchmark brackets ostensibly are the highs and lows from 2005-2008, which for the 2006-7 and 2007-8 reports DID serve to stabilize the basis of comparison. But why the “goalposts” weren’t moved for 2009 when new outliers is beyond me. I think it’s simply a blunder. But this is driving the non-sensical percentiles and polluting the calculations.

    You’re also getting at one of the flaws of “peer groups,” but I’m trying to space out my rants.

  • Pingback: Accountability Crumbles Into Incoherence « iThinkEducation.net!

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Follow GothamSchools

RSS

Feb. 10: You’re invited!

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

21 comments so far today
View all comments »

RSS Feeds

Newsroom posts Community posts All GothamSchools content

Our Twitter Updates

Archives

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  

Copyright Notice