Ignoring Accountability, but Closing Schools

NYC’s accountability system — Progress Reports and Quality Reviews — has cost the city millions and millions of dollars and wrought infinite havoc on the schools. Terrified of being closed if they don’t satisfy the formulas and rubrics, schools recast the work they do for children into work they do for the system. To satisfy the demands of the Progress Reports, schools teach to deeply flawed tests. To satisfy the demands of Quality Reviews, they place their limited resources (time, money, people) on grooming the dogs and ponies for the reviewer. That is an unavoidable consequence of high stakes cultures, and one that (in the case of QR) probably dismays some DoE’ers as much as us.

But dismay aside, the DoE is utterly invested in its accountability system. It has been the favorite child, and actually the only child, of Chancellor Klein. It is also the one he takes on the road with him when he visits other states. And the message is clear: We are going by the data in New York, and using the data in sophisticated ways in our accountability system. If a school can’t meet the standards of the Progress Reports and Quality Reviews, well then, we just might shut it down.

Which is why it comes as some surprise to me to discover that the DoE pretty much tossed out its own accountability system when it named the schools it wants to close this year. We know this because for the first time, the DoE has been forced to provide the school communities with Educational Impact Statements (EIS). In them, the DoE must explain why it wants to close the school.

That DoE standard is comprised first and foremost of grades on the Progress Reports and Quality Reviews. Yet, though the standard brazenly asserts itself in the EIS, the DoE just as brazenly ignores it. In fact, of the twenty schools proposed for closure, fourteen scored above the basic criteria for being considered for closing (they did better, in other words). Nonetheless, if the DoE gets its way, then they will close.

Whether or not that ought to happen, I don’t know. I do know we are spending an awful lot of time on an accountability system that was tossed out in the end.

But let’s take a look at the EIS for just one of the schools that the DoE hopes to close. Let’s compare it to the standard. In the EIS for The School for Community Research and Learning (SCRL), the DoE writes:

“Under the DOE’s accountability framework, schools that receive an overall grade of D or F on the Progress Report….”

[SCRL received a C this year and has never had a D or F.]

…[or] schools receiving a C for three years in a row…

[SCRL has not had three C’s. Last year it received a B.]

…and a score below Proficient on the Quality Review are subject to school improvement measures. If no significant progress is made over time, … closure is possible.

[SCRL has a “Proficient” on its Quality Review. Here are a few of the many fine things the Reviewer had to say:

• The high expectations of teachers, students and parents are in evidence in all aspects of the work of the school.
• Students in greatest need of improvement receive valuable support from the teachers and other staff and make good progress in their achievement levels.
• There are good communication systems, which engage parents as partners in their children’s education.

That report was written just two years ago. Last year, the school did not have a Quality Review because schools with B’s and “Proficient” were functioning well, and therefore were exempt.

This year, the DoE wants to close the school.

The DoE recognizes that it is ignoring its own accountability system and in fact says that for SCRL “the overall scores on the DOE’s accountability tools do not meet standard criteria for closure.”

Good point. Nonetheless, the school is slated for closure, and so to justify that closing, DoE does some reaching. With each reach the justification gets curiouser and curiouser, and then curiouser again.

First, DoE says that the school received a D on some sub-grades. But sub-grades are rolled into the overall grade. SCRL’s overall grade was a C. Closing a school for a failing sub-grade is like expelling a student because he failed in Math. Besides are all the other kids with sub-grade D’s getting expelled? (The answer’s no.)

Second, DoE says the problem is that the graduation rate is low.

Say what? What do we need Progress Reports for if we are going to resort to the crude raw numbers of graduation rates when it comes time to judge a school? Wasn’t that the point of all these formulas? To evaluate schools fairly against the challenges they face? SCRL serves one of the toughest populations in the city: 25% of its kids are special education. The Progress Reports are far from perfect, but no one believes it would be an improvement to simply close the schools according to their flat-out graduation rates. That suggestion would be laughable coming from the data-driven DoE, if it weren’t so serious for the communities involved.

And DoE’s final rationale: it “conducted an assessment of the school’s capacity to improve.” So, why exactly are we paying for Progress Reports and Quality Reviews, and turning the schools upside down to prepare for them if in the end, the school will be shut by a mysterious “assessment”?

What is true of decisions about SCRL’s proposed closing is true of a lot of the schools throughout the city. Of the 20 schools chosen for closing:

• Thirteen were found to be Proficient on the Quality Review
• None had an F and eight did not have a D either.
• Three did not have three C’s in a row.

And, by the way, six are in good standing with the State.

Ultimately, with SCRL — and in fact a lot of the schools that DoE wants to close — the decision seems arbitrary, or else based on the demographics of the students rather than the quality of the schools. The schools proposed for closing have on average significantly more vulnerable populations than the city in general, but are not necessarily the ones that have failed on Progress Reports and Quality Reviews.

Tagged: Bronx, high school, school closings