Running Out of Time
New York City’s Weak Education Plans Leave Dozens of NYC Priority Schools
at Risk of Closure
January 7, 2015
I. Introduction
On December 19, five months late -- and halfway through the school year -- the de
Blasio administration finally submitted state-mandated plans for 247 struggling
Focus and Priority schools. While a reasonable assumption for the delay might be
that Mayor de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña were applying more
stringent oversight and measures of accountability — steps that would actually
enable the schools to improve — an analysis of the plans reveals a distinct absence
of earnest turnaround action plans.
Of New York City’s 91 Priority Schools—among the bottom 5% in the city and
designated as persistently low-achieving by the state Education Department—more
than 40 percent, or 37 schools, are in their third straight year of Priority School
status. The city’s plans include weak or nonexistent achievement goals for
these schools, potentially leaving them in jeopardy of state-prescribed Out of
Time status, a designation for a completely failing school that could lead to
closure.
The New York Post reported yesterday morning that 14 of them have already
been identified as Out of Time schools and could be closed in six months for
failure to make academic progress.
Out of Time schools are Priority Schools that have failed to make sufficient academic
progress after three years; thus, they are deemed “out of time” to turn themselves
around. They must be subjected to one of several intervention options that include
closing/replacing the school, converting it into a charter school, replacing leadership
and staff, and handing off authority for the school to a different organization.
These schools are woefully deficient, and the families whose children must attend
these failing institutions deserve better than small steps forward. But instead of
providing true vision for how these schools can be great, the administration has
produced plans that imply low or no expectations for academic improvement. Has
the city given up on these schools and their students?
The inadequacy of the city’s plans for struggling schools strengthens Regents
Chancellor Merryl Tisch’s recent call for expanded state authority to intervene in
failing schools. By proposing goals for many of the city’s chronically failing schools
that are too incremental or insufficient to put them in good academic standing, Mayor
de Blasio risks leaving the state Education Commissioner with little choice but to
close or overhaul dozens of schools at the end of this academic year.
The state Education Department should reject the city’s submitted plans and
demand stronger ones. New York City’s students and parents deserve better.
II. Background
As part of New York State’s waiver from the federal Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (No Child Left Behind), negotiated with the U.S. Department of
Education in 2012, New York State must undertake serious attempts to turn around
its lowest-performing schools (Priority Schools) and schools that persistently fail a
specific subgroup of students (Focus Schools). Together, the Focus and Priority
schools are eligible for hundreds of millions of federal education dollars to support
swift, meaningful efforts to lift student achievement. Funds range from School
Improvement Grants to School Innovation Fund Grants and Race to the Top
Systemic School Support Grants.
What are Priority Schools?
•
•
•
Title I (high-poverty) schools that are persistently low-achieving and among
the bottom 5% of lowest-performing schools in the state
Title I or Title I-eligible secondary schools with graduation rates of less than
60% for a number of years
Title I or Title I-eligible schools implementing school intervention models using
School Improvement Grants (SIG)
If Priority Schools—drawn from the lowest-performing 5% of schools—fail to make
sufficient academic progress and are still not in good academic standing after three
years, the state Education Commissioner must consider them for closure.
This was noted when the list of Priority Schools was released in 2012 (“106 City
Schools in Danger of Closing Due to Poor Performance,” New York Daily News,
F a m i l i e s f o r E x c e l l e n t Sc h o o l s | 3 4 5 7 t h A v e n u e , Su i t e 5 0 1 | N e w Y o r k , N Y 1 0 0 0 1
!
2!
8/30/2012; “State Names 123 City Schools to Improve or Close by 2015,” Gotham
Schools, 8/30/2012).
Below is the relevant portion of New York State’s Approved Elementary and
Secondary Education Act Flexibility Request:
k) Identification of schools for preliminary registration review.*
(1) Beginning with 2014-2015 school year results and thereafter, the
commissioner shall place under preliminary registration review those schools
identified as Focus or Priority for at least three consecutive years that are
determined to have made insufficient progress towards the implementation of
their comprehensive improvement plan or have failed to demonstrate
progress since identification as a Focus or Priority School in improving
student results on the performance criteria specified in paragraphs (1) and (4)
of subdivision (j) of this section, except that the commissioner may upon a
finding of extenuating circumstances extend the period during which the
school must demonstrate progress.
*Regents guidelines state that if a school under Registration Review makes
insufficient progress, the state Commissioner of Education must recommend
to the Board of Regents that its registration be revoked.
III. Priority Schools Headed for Out of Time Status
On December 19, New York City finally submitted Comprehensive Education Plans
for 247 Focus and Priority schools, which had been originally due before the start of
the academic year, on July 31 — and were delayed for nearly five months.
For two consecutive years, 37 of the 91 Priority Schools failed to make sufficient
academic progress to meet the removal criteria. They are now halfway through the
2014-2015 school year, with six months remaining before becoming eligible for Out
of Time status. As the New York Post reports, the state Education Department has
already identified 14 of them as Out of Time.
Consistent with New York State’s obligations under its Elementary and Secondary
Education Act waiver and guidance provided by the state Education Department to
school districts last year, Out of Time schools must undergo one of a series of
dramatic intervention strategies—two of which involve closing the school. Such
schools must choose one of the following options:
1. Close the school and disperse the students;
2. Phase out the identified school and phase in a new replacement
school;
F a m i l i e s f o r E x c e l l e n t Sc h o o l s | 3 4 5 7 t h A v e n u e , Su i t e 5 0 1 | N e w Y o r k , N Y 1 0 0 0 1
!
3!
3.
4.
5.
6.
Contract with an Educational Partnership Organization;
Establish an alternate governance structure for the school(s);
Convert to a charter school;
Enter into a contract with the State University of New York (SUNY) or, in
New York City, the City University of New York (CUNY), to provide for the
education of the students at the identified school(s).
A review of the Comprehensive Education Plans reveals a lack of urgency or
resolve from the de Blasio administration to avoid Out of Time status for
Priority Schools. The extra five months the city required to produce these plans did
not result in rigorous blueprints for change or bold turnaround strategies to boost
student achievement. Instead, most of these plans do not even bother to articulate
goals to raise student achievement, and of those that do, most set goals that would
likely lead to them falling into Out of Time status.
While any final determination of whether a Priority School has made sufficient
academic progress to be removed from the list of lowest-performing schools
depends on a complex and relative1 calculation at the end of the school year, certain
facts forecast failure:
a) New York City submitted these plans late, halfway into the school year—
meaning schools have less than six months to execute their goals, and
b) all inputs for de-identification from Priority School status hinge on
measurable improvements in students’ performance on state exams and/or
graduation rates
Schools that lack any performance goals whatsoever or set incremental goals are at
greater risk of falling into Out of Time status. It is highly unlikely that a school that
improves student proficiency on state exams by single digits and fails to graduate
more than 60% of its students will be able to clear the Performance Index threshold
and avoid becoming Out of Time.
Indeed, the state Education Department appears to have already determined that 14
of them are Out of Time and could be closed.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
Guidance document for schools districts required to submit plans for Out of Time schools can be
found at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/guidance.html
!
F a m i l i e s f o r E x c e l l e n t Sc h o o l s | 3 4 5 7 t h A v e n u e , Su i t e 5 0 1 | N e w Y o r k , N Y 1 0 0 0 1
!
4!
IV. In New York City, 37 Priority Schools Are Eligible for Out of Time Status
This Year
22 Priority Elementary Schools at Risk of Out of Time Status2
A full 86% of elementary/middle schools in this category have nonexistent or
incremental goals heading into Year 3 of Priority School status. (For details, see
Appendix).
•
•
No Goals: 50% of the elementary/middle schools don't have any performance
goals in their plans. At these schools, an average of 6% of students were able
to pass state English Language Arts and math proficiency exams.
Incremental Goals: 36% of the elementary/middle schools have a
performance goal of improving the proficiency rate of the overall student body
by less than 10 percentage points on the state exams.
17 Priority High Schools at Risk of Out of Time Status
A full 65% of high schools in this category have nonexistent or incremental
goals heading into Year 3 of Priority School status. (For details, see Appendix).
•
•
No Goals: 12% of the high schools don't have any performance goals in their
plans. At these schools, only 6% of students graduated with the academic
proficiency to be considered ready for college.
Incremental Goals: 53% of the high schools have at least one performance
goal that calls for an improvement of less than 10 percentage points in overall
Regents exam pass rates or graduation rates.
IV. Lack of Accountability and Standards in Priority Schools Plans
The analysis of the Priority Schools’ plans (known formally as Comprehensive
Education Plans) also reveal a startling lack of concrete, tangible measures for
improving student achievement among a dozen of the worst-performing schools.
Instead of instituting rigorous reforms and accountability mechanisms to swiftly raise
achievement, the city has produced plans for these schools that are incremental in
nature (e.g., a 1% increase in ELA/Math exam scores), untethered from student
achievement (e.g., “Evening of Elegance,” pottery class, additional lunch/recess), or
are revealing of how far these schools have yet to come (focus on schoolwide
uniform policy).
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2!Henry&Street&School&and&Juan&Morel&Campos&Secondary&School&are&grades&6812&and&cover&
both&middle&and&high&school&grades.!
F a m i l i e s f o r E x c e l l e n t Sc h o o l s | 3 4 5 7 t h A v e n u e , Su i t e 5 0 1 | N e w Y o r k , N Y 1 0 0 0 1
!
5!
Plans with incremental goals that focus on culture or attendance, and set negligible
achievement targets are unlikely to change academic outcomes for students in these
schools. Instead, these plans set the schools up for another year of insufficient
progress and failure—and more lost time for New York City’s children.
Below are some excerpts from the plans of several of the low-performing schools,
which illustrate the lack of rigor and inadequate approaches—drawing into question
whether New York City is serious about attempting to turn around these failing
schools:
EXCERPTS FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION PLANS
•
JHS 162 LOLA RODRIGUEZ DE TIO (X162)
o The School Leadership Team in close collaboration with the school
Parent-Teacher Association has articulated a schoolwide uniform
policy that it is being consistently enforced with almost (99%) full
collaboration from parents and students. (Section 5, Part 1b:
Needs/Areas for Improvement)
•
M.S. 301 PAUL L. DUNBAR
o “By June 2015, target population’s attendance will increase by 5%.”
(Section 5, Part 1 – ELT Program Goals)
o “For 2 hours on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays, students are offered
multiple venues for enrichment in which applied learning is the key
impetus of the programs. Programs include the Entrepreneurial Club,
dance, boxing, Civics Club, Mural Club, and the Quill and Scroll Club.
An off-site partnership with Trinity Church—Morrisania facilitates a
pottery club at 5:30 PM on Fridays which extends till 8:30 PM, and
these clubs stress CCLS and offer opportunities to apply core curricula
and skill development as students seek to enrich themselves in their
chosen endeavors.” (Section 5, Part 2 – ELT Program Description)
•
MARTIN VAN BUREN HIGH SCHOOL
o “By June 2015, as a result of implementation of a comprehensive ELT
program focusing on increasing student achievement in ELA and math
across all grades, there will be a 2% increase in scores for those
students being administered the January NY State Performance
Assessments in either ELA or Math.” (Section 5, Part 1 – ELT
Program Goal)
•
BANANA KELLY HIGH SCHOOL
o “Annual Thanksgiving Feast, Evening of Elegance, Annual Forward
planning, overnight school retreats, weekly professional development
opportunities.” (Section 5D, Part 3 – Action Plan)
F a m i l i e s f o r E x c e l l e n t Sc h o o l s | 3 4 5 7 t h A v e n u e , Su i t e 5 0 1 | N e w Y o r k , N Y 1 0 0 0 1
!
6!
V. CONCLUSION
“We agree with the Governor that if these [Priority] schools cannot be made to
perform, they must be closed and replaced by institutions that are up to the
task of ensuring that students graduate from school college-and-careerready…
Additional schools will shortly begin this “Out of Time” process…Our
experience has been that while we have used the full authority available to
the Department to address the issue of struggling schools, the tools available
to the Department need to be expanded so that systemic conditions in
districts that result in struggling schools can be fixed.”
—New York State Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl H. Tisch and Interim
State Education Commissioner Beth Berlin,
December, 31, 2014
The concentration of failing schools in New York’s urban cities presents the greatest
public policy challenge of our generation. Across New York State, nearly 250,000
students are trapped in failing schools, giving heightened urgency to Governor
Cuomo’s words in his inaugural address: “public education…has become in some
communities the great discriminator.”
These 250,000 students—the vast majority of whom are of color and come from
families at or near the poverty line—attend schools where 90% or more of students
cannot read or do math at grade level or are not college ready (Ignition Failure:
Broken Schools Threaten New York State’s Revival; December 2, 2014).
New York City’s submissions of improvement plans for Priority Schools indicates that
the city is setting goals so low for its worst schools that dozens of them will
soon run out of time—both metaphorically and literally—to turn themselves
around. Even if all proficiency goals were met (for the schools that set them) a
majority of students would still be failing at these schools. Further, the city’s
incremental and halfhearted approach toward its failing schools crisis in 2014 does
not offer any evidence that it can be trusted to enact the bold, transformative reforms
necessary to raise student achievement and avoid losing another generation of
mostly poor and of-color children to the great “discriminator” that public education
has become.
For this reason, we strongly urge the state Education Department to reject
New York City’s submitted plans for Priority Schools. In the face of months of
delays, the state said last November that it is “holding back on allocating several
hundred million dollars [to New York City] in federal funds until the [Focus and
F a m i l i e s f o r E x c e l l e n t Sc h o o l s | 3 4 5 7 t h A v e n u e , Su i t e 5 0 1 | N e w Y o r k , N Y 1 0 0 0 1
!
7!
Priority School] plans are finalized,” (New York Post, 11/5/2014). The state should
continue to withhold these funds until the city submits plans that are bolder and more
rigorous and that raise accountability standards so that students trapped in failing
schools have a meaningful chance at a high-quality education.
If districts like New York City are not up to the task, the Board of Regents and state
Education Department must be granted expanded authority and an expedited
mandate to intervene in failing schools and provide more high-quality schooling
options in urban areas. Specifically, we support the Chancellor Tisch’s call for the
Education Department to be granted the tools necessary for bold, transformative
change in New York’s failing schools:
•
•
•
Grant the Board of Regents and state Education Department statutory
authority to make the “appointment of a receiver for any school or district
designated as chronically underperforming. [In a similar model in
Massachusetts, t]he receiver is authorized to take numerous aggressive
actions to increase efficiency and dramatically improve student achievement.”
Place “chronically underperforming school districts into three levels of
academic and/or fiscal restructuring status [under state oversight], in an
effort to provide them with the tools and supports they need to get them back
on track and remove them from oversight.”
“…prevent an arbitrary barrier…eliminate the regional distinctions under the
current [charter school] cap (as high-quality charter applications have been
greater in NYC than in the rest of the state to date), or raise the cap on
charter schools in NYC because there is a strong demand in NYC.
© 2015 Families for Excellent Schools
For additional information about Families for Excellent Schools, visit our website:
www.familiesforexcellentschools.org
!
F a m i l i e s f o r E x c e l l e n t Sc h o o l s | 3 4 5 7 t h A v e n u e , Su i t e 5 0 1 | N e w Y o r k , N Y 1 0 0 0 1
!
8!
APPENDIX
PRIORITY K-8 SCHOOLS: NO PROGRESS, LOW (OR NO) EXPECTATIONS
FOR IMPROVEMENT
ELA)Pass) Math)Pass)
Rate
Rate
School
Student)Performance)Goal)in)Improvement)Plan
JUAN)MOREL)CAMPOS)SECONDARY)SCHOOL)
2%
4%
Increase)state)exam)pass)rates)by)10)percentage)points
MS)301)PAUL)L)DUNBAR)
5%
2%
A)decline)in)the)rate)of)students)scoring)far)below)standards)from)87%)
to)77%,)but)no)pass)rate)target
MS)584)
2%
5%
No)performance)goal)in)the)plan
HENRY)STREET)SCHOOL*)
3%
4%
Increase)state)exam)pass)rates)by)10)percentage)points
IS)219)NEW)VENTURE)SCHOOL)
4%
3%
No)performance)goal)except)"80%)mastery")of)inZclass)tasks
HUNTS)POINT)SCHOOL)
4%
4%
No)goal)in)the)plan,)except)for)writing)improvement)as)measured)by)an)
internal)assessment
PS)92)
4%
3%
To)improve)state)exam)scores)of)Extended)Learning)Time)students)by)
one)level
JHS)22)JORDAN)L)MOTT)
7%
1%
Calls)for)all)students)to)meet)or)exceed)NYC's)median)adjusted)growth)
score)(i.e.)improve)by)an)average)amount)relative)to)similar)students)
BRONX)MATHEMATICS)PREP)SCHOOL)
6%
2%
Increase)state)exam)pass)rates)by)5)percentage)points
PS)328)PHYLLIS)WHEATLEY)
4%
4%
An)increase)of)5)percentage)points)for)ELT)students
PS)298)DR)BETTY)SHABAZZ)
7%
2%
An)increase)of)3)percentage)points)on)state)exams
GENERAL)D)CHAPPIE)JAMES)MIDDLE)SCHOOL)
5%
3%
No)performance)goal)in)the)plan
MS)53)BRIAN)PICCOLO)
6%
3%
No)performance)goal)in)the)plan
IS)313)SCHOOL)OF)LEADERSHIP)DEV)
4%
5%
No)performance)goal)in)the)plan
SCHOOL)OF)PERFORMING)ARTS)
6%
4%
Calls)for)9%)of)students)to)pass)ELA)and)Math
JHS)162)LOLA)RODRIGUEZ)DE)TIO)
4%
6%
Increase)state)exam)pass)rates)by)4)percentage)points
JHS)291)ROLAND)HAYES)
6%
6%
No)performance)goal)in)the)plan
IS)339)
6%
6%
No)performance)goal)in)the)plan
PS)123)MAHALIA)JACKSON)
8%
4%
A)"10%)performance)increase")for)ELT)students,)which)would)likely)
translate)to)a)pass)rate)gain)of)less)than)1)percentage)point
ANGELO)PATRI)MIDDLE)SCHOOL)
8%
7%
No)performance)goal)in)the)plan
PS)111)JACOB)BLACKWELL)
8%
9%
No)performance)goal,)except)for)all)students)to)have)a)"portfolio")of)
writing)and)problem)solving,)demonstrating)skills)that)"would)have")
met)Common)Core)standards))
JHS)8)RICHARD)S)GROSSLEY)
12%
10%
No)performance)goal)in)the)plan
*Henry Street School includes grades grades 6-12; data above is for grades 6-8
PRIORITY HIGH SCHOOLS: NO PROGRESS, LOW (OR NO) EXPECTATIONS
School
Graduation+Rate+
State's+progress+goal+
=+70%
Regents Pass Rate
English
Algebra
City+Avg+=+76% City+Avg+=+64%
College+
Readiness
Performance+Goal(s)+in+Improvement+Plans
W+E+B+DUBOIS+ACADEMIC+HIGH+SCHOOL
13%
n/a
n/a
0%
Calls+for+at+least+50%+of+students+who+failed+Regents+Examinations+
during+the+2013P2014+school+year+to+earn+passing+grades
ASPIRATIONS+DIPLOMA+PLUS+HIGH+SCHOOL
11%
n/a
n/a
0%
Increase+the+number+of+students+passing+their+courses+by+20%+and+
achieve+a+"significant+increase"+in+the+number+of+students+on+track+for+
graduation
SAMUEL+GOMPERS+CAREER/TECH+ED+HS
37%
54%
28%
2%
Increase+Regents+pass+rates+by+5%+(but+the+school+"expects"+an+
increase+of+15+percentage+points)
Increase+graduation+rate+by+10+percentage+points
AUGUST+MARTIN+HIGH+SCHOOL
39%
66%
43%
2%
Increase+course+pass+rates+by+5+percentage+points
Increase+ELA+Regents+pass+rate+of+Extended+Learning+Time+students+by+
10+percentage+points
ALFRED+E+SMITH+CAREERPTECH+HIGH+SCH
64%
43%
61%
3%
No+performance+goal+in+the+plan
MONROE+ACAD+FOR+VISUAL+ARTS+&+DESIGN
45%
82%
68%
3%
Increase+Regents+passing+rate+by+4+percentage+points
By+February+2015,+increase+rate+of+students+on+track+for+graduation+by+
2+percentage+points
NEW+EXPLORERS+HIGH+SCHOOL
56%
57%
86%
4%
Equal+or+surpass+a+fourPyear+graduation+rate+of+60%,+with+"clear+
progress+towards+the+80%+aspirational+standard"
BRONX+HIGH+SCHOOL+OF+BUSINESS
45%
45%
57%
4%
Increase+English+Language+Learners'+pass+rate+on+the+ELA+Regents+
exam+by+5+percentage+points,+from+45%+to+50%
CYPRESS+HILLS+COLLEGIATE+PREP+SCHOOL
50%
58%
55%
7%
Calls+for+50%+of+ELL+population+to+improve+by+one+level+on+the+
NYSESLAT+exam
BRONXWOOD+PREP+ACADEMY
73%
70%
53%
8%
Increase+ELA+Regents+Pass+rate+by+3+percentage+points
RICHMOND+HILL+HIGH+SCHOOL
52%
60%
59%
8%
No+performance+goal+in+the+plan
HERBERT+H+LEHMAN+HIGH+SCHOOL
53%
50%
39%
9%
Increase+the+pass+rates+of+Regents+exams+in+Algebra+and+English+by+6+
percentage+points
Increase+the+graduation+rate+by+5+percenage+points
JUAN+MOREL+CAMPOS+SECONDARY+SCH
58%
58%
36%
11%
Increase+exam+pass+rates+by+10+percentage+points
Increase+rate+of+English+Language+Learners+who+make+progress+by+10+
percentage+points+
Calls+for+65%+of+students+to+demonstrate+"an+increase+in+proficiency,"+
as+measured+by+internal+assessments,+by+Feb.+2015
HENRY+STREET+SCHOOL**
43%
54%
39%
3%
Increase+exam+pass+rates+by+10+percentage+points
DEWITT+CLINTON+HIGH+SCHOOL
46%
60%
40%
13%
Increase+Regents+exam+pass+rates+in+Math,+Science,+Global+Studies+and+
US+History+from+41%+to+50%
Increase+weighted+Regents+pass+rates+(i.e.+pass+rates+adjusted+to+give+
credit+for+high+scores)+as+follows:+
PMath+from++0.89+to+0.9+
PScience+from+0.99+to+1.0+
PGlobal+Studies+from++0.43+to+0.57+
PUS+History+from++1.04+to+1.05
BANANA+KELLY+HIGH+SCHOOL
41%
48%
34%
n/a
Increase+Regents+pass+rates+by+10+percentage+points+and+increase+
graduation+rates+by+5+percentage+points
**Henry Street School includes grades 6-12; data above is for grades 9-12