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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.