Curious2

Progress Report Redux, 2009-2010

2010-10-01T08:27:56-07:00

Yesterday, the city released its annual Progress Reports. Mirroring the trend with test scores, charter school progress reports suffered more than their public school counterparts, receiving a higher proportion of C and D grades and an overall lower average Progress Report score. A full breakdown of charter school performance compared to last year’s Progress Reports can be found in the spreadsheet available here.

Some observations:

1. Like their public school counterparts, several charter schools benefitted from the DOE’s decision to implement a floor to the grading process. This floor meant that a school’s overall Progress Report grade could not go down by further than two letter grades—making the lowest grade for an A school last year, when 84% of all public schools and 73% of charter schools receive the highest mark, a C. The charter schools in particular who benefitted from this floor were: (with scores, given Progress Report grade, and overall school rank noted)

a. Future Leaders Institute Charter School: Score, 12.3; Grade: D (received B last year), Rank: 2%

b. The UFT Charter School: Score, 13; Grade: D (received B last year), Rank: 2%

c. Harlem Day Charter School: Score, 10.2; Grade: D (received B last year), Rank: 2%

d. Ross Global Academy Charter School: Score, 0.1; Grade: C (received A last year), Rank: 0%

e. Sisulu-Walker Charter School: Score, 11.2; Grade: C (received A last year), Rank: 1%

f. Bronx Charter School for Children: Score, 15.3; Grade: C (received A last year), Rank: 3%

g. Merrick Academy Charter School: Score, 13.9; Grade: C (received A last year), Rank: 3%

2. Many of the charter schools that performed poorly in 2008-2009 again performed poorly in 2009-2010. The exception is the South Bronx Charter School for International Cultures and the Arts, which went from being in the 20th percentile to the 76th percentile – the biggest gain of any school. The school that dropped the most was New Heights Academy Charter School, which went from being in the 98th percentile of all schools to the 17th percentile.

3. Merrick Academy and Girls Prep – two schools that were plagued with problems with staff and space, respectively—experienced large drops in their overall Progress Report Scores and percentile rankings. Merrick Academy’s overall score dropped by over 80 points and its percentile ranking fell from 76% of all schools to the bottom 3%. Girls Prep Charter School’s score dropped by 70 points and its rank dropped from the 82nd percentile to the 13th.

4. The UFT Charter School remained in the bottom 5% of all schools citywide, and became only the second charter school to remain in the bottom 15% of all schools for citywide for three years in a row. Only one other school, Peninsula Preparatory Academy, has remained in the bottom 15%, although this year it improved and is now in the 35th percentile of all schools citywide.

5. The best performing charter school was Democracy Prep Charter School, which received a score of 88.9 (compared to 99.8 last year) and was ranked in the top 1% of all schools citywide. Other charter schools that were in the top 5% of schools citywide were: Williamsburg Collegiate Charter school, KIPP Infinity Charter School, and Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School. A full list of all charter schools that received Progress Report grades, as well as their scores, overall percentile rank, and performance last year, is available below.

As always, I welcome your comments and suggestions for how to improve this report!

Overall, suspension rates among charter schools varied widely, with some suspending no students and others suspending close to 40% of their student body. Out of the 77 schools that were open in 2008-2009, 18 suspended no students and 21 suspended 10% or more of their student body. However, as with all BEDS data, these numbers are self-reported by schools and thus could be unreliable. (This is the same as the traditional public school data, although there the data includes more severe superintendent’s suspensions, which are corroborated by a second person outside of the school itself.)

I did not disaggregate the data by type of school—that is, elementary, middle, or high school—since I didn’t see any noticeable difference in suspension rates between middle and high schools. (Elementary schools had slightly lower rates.) Furthermore, this data only looks at suspensions, not expulsions—a key difference, since expelling a student might be easier at a charter school, where the board only has to approve a principal’s recommendation. At a traditional public school, a student cannot be expelled unless he/she is 17 years of age. If the student is younger than 17, the most severe form of discipline allowed is an extended suspension for a year or an involuntary transfer, both of which can only be given with the consent of the regional superintendent and/or the Director of Suspensions.

For more on traditional public school discipline policies, see this primer. For a sample of charter school discipline policies, see this folder. (N.B. I plan on updating this folder after I look at more charter applications next week.)

As always, I welcome your feedback on ways to improve this data, as well as other questions you might have.

MAP UPDATE: Closed Schools v. Charter Schools Since 2003

2010-06-30T12:58:33-07:00

Last week I posted a map of the schools that have been phased out by the DOE since 2003. (Note: not all of these schools were initially proposed for closure under Mayor Bloomberg.) After your feedback, I added some new information: the charter schools that have been opened since 2003 (in blue), new schools that have been opened since 2003 (in green), and economic data about the neighborhoods in which these schools are located. As always, I'd love your feedback as I move forward with this project!

Buried in the New School Report, the Start of an Answer

2010-06-18T12:34:23-07:00

In its focus on school leadership, the New School's recent report, Managing by the Numbers, provides a partial answer to a question I’ve long harbored: what happens to incompetent principals?

Teachers accused of incompetence or misconduct have been sent to notorious “rubber rooms,” where they await a hearing, known colloquially by its paragraph number in the Education Law, 3020a. While waiting, teachers are paid their full salary until the dispute is resolved. (For more on teacher termination, these articles are particularly detailed.)

Yet for principals, the process is less commonly discussed. Are there principal rubber rooms? Who is in charge of documenting principal incompetence? And just how hard is it to terminate a principal?

Managing the Numbers offers some answers. Each principal signs a contract with the DOE in which they agree to be held accountable for academic results. Principals are then evaluated based on a principal performance review, which weighs student progress (in the form of the much-maligned Progress Reports), the student population served, the principal’s compliance with budgeting and school services, and the principal’s ability to articulate and implement five goals for the school. There is a fifth component—an outside quality review—that is optional for schools that do well on their Progress Report. The largest parts of the evaluation are the Progress Report and the self-assigned goals, which basically mean that if a principal does well on the Progress Report, there isn’t much incentive to dig deeper.

As soon as a principal receives a low Progress Report grade, he or she can be transferred to another school, moved into an administrative position, or, if the conduct was particularly bad, terminated. The procedure for termination for a principal is similar to that of a teacher in that it includes a 3020a hearing, but the principal is suspended without pay until the hearing is resolved.

Under this new accountability framework, there has been an enormous turnover in the principal ranks. Over 80% of the current crop of principals started with the DOE after Klein took office. More recently, though, principal turnover has declined. Annual retirements have decreased from 11.8% in 2002-2003 to 3.8% in 2007-2008.

To be clear, there is a distinction between principal removal and principal termination. The report suggests that principals whom the DOE wishes to remove from schools are simply sent into DOE staff positions – not fired, and not sent to rubber rooms. Anita Gomez-Palacia, executive director of operations for the principals' union, is quoted as saying: “It’s very hard to prove incompetence based on test scores in the school building. It’s hard to prove the administrator is the cause of the problem.” In other words, it’s easy to get a principal out of a school, but there is less incentive or less drive to get a principal off the DOE’s payroll.

This information is helpful, but still leaves me with more questions. Just how many principals get removed from their classrooms? Is it possible to remove a principal that students and teachers may dislike but who has achieved good test results? How many principals have actually been terminated? What is the hearing process like—and how is it different from a teacher’s 3020a hearing? I would love feedback from principals and teachers to get a better sense of how principal accountability differs from teacher accountability.