breaking

Partial teacher evaluation deal clears way for improvement funds

After months of negotiations, the city and teachers union announced a deal today on a set of reforms that will allow the state to claim millions of dollars promised to struggling schools.

The announcement comes a week after the state ramped up pressure on the city to finalize its plans for how to improve its lowest-performing schools. The state’s deadline to complete its application for federal School Improvement Grants is just two weeks away. New York City is eligible for up to $65 million to help 33 “persistently low-achieving” schools undergo one of four processes over the next two years.

The 33 schools will undergo one of two revamp options, “restart” and “transformation,” according to the agreement. Those models are the least aggressive and also the least objectionable for the teachers union: They do not involve removing teachers or asking them to reapply for their jobs. “Restart” assigns a new management organization, and “transformation” replaces the principal and brings in additional resources.

Decisions about which model each of the 33 schools on the list would undergo will be made “over the next week,” according to the city’s press release. Last year, 11 city schools underwent the “transformation” process, and nine schools are undergoing the restart process this fall.

The city’s press release is long on relief but short on specifics other than that the city and union have agreed to implement the state’s new teacher evaluation model — but only in the 33 struggling schools.An impasse over the evaluations had caused the months-long holdup in negotiations. A key sticking point was whether teachers would be allowed to discuss their observations with their principals: The union wanted meetings built into the agreement, but the city said the extra step would add unnecessary delay to the evaluation process. The issue is absent from the city’s press release but union officials said it had been resolved.

Supporters of the state’s toughened teacher evaluations said today’s agreement could be a blueprint for the rest of the city’s schools.

“This agreement is a good first step towards placing highly effective teachers in every classroom, but I urge both sides to institute this evaluation system across the board immediately so that every child has a chance to learn from the city’s best educators,” said Joe Williams, executive director of Democrats for Education Reform, in a statement.

The city’s press release also heralds a performance pay program for teachers at the struggling schools that was finalized more than a year ago. That performance pay program will now be aligned with the state’s teacher evaluation law, and only teachers who fall into the highest of four tiers will be able to occupy higher-paying “master teacher” and “turnaround teacher” positions.

UFT President Michael Mulgrew looked only to the future in the city’s press release. Reiterating the union’s concern that the city has inadequately invested in struggling schools in the past — a concern that fueled the union’s lawsuit to halt 22 school closures — he said the priority is to direct the new federal funds to needy schools and their students.

“This agreement helps lay the groundwork,” Mulgrew said. “Now we have to focus on providing the resources these struggling schools need to make a real difference in the lives of their students.”

AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS’ UNION WILL HELP SECURE $65 MILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS FOR STRUGGLING SCHOOLS

DOE-UFT agreement also includes a new, 4-category teacher evaluation system in these schools

Schools Chancellor Dennis M. Walcott and United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew today announced an important agreement that will help secure up to $65 million over the next two years in federal School Improvement Grants, a U.S. Department of Education program that provides funding to help transform our nation’s struggling schools.  The funding will go to implement either “restart” or “transformation” at 33 City schools identified by the State as persistently lowest achieving (PLA) and therefore at risk of being closed.

“With this agreement, we will be able to bring millions of dollars in federal funding to these struggling schools and recruit top quality teachers to help students succeed and mentor other staff,”  said Chancellor Dennis Walcott. “I also want to thank Michael Mulgrew for his commitment to working with us to implement a more effective and meaningful teacher evaluation system to in these schools.  I believe our collaboration on matters like this is critical to student success.”

UFT President Michael Mulgrew said, “This agreement helps lay the groundwork.  Now we have to focus on providing the resources these struggling schools need to make a real difference in the lives of their students.”

In the 33 schools, the DOE and UFT have also jointly agreed to implement a new teacher evaluation system that is aligned with the State’s new teacher evaluation law.  The evaluation system in these schools will be based on a four-category rating system of highly effective, effective, developing and ineffective, instead of the current system that simply gives teachers a rating of satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

Federal guidelines identify four models for school improvement—a “transformation” model, a “turnaround” model, a “restart” model, and a “closure” model—each  involving different strategies to improve low performing schools.  Last year, 11 of these 33 schools were chosen for “transformation.”

Under the “transformation” model, the principal of the school is generally replaced, and the schools will be able to hire new teachers in the categories “Master Teacher” and “Turnaround Teachers.” A Master Teacher working in a PLA school will receive 30% above their base salary and is expected to serve as a mentor for other teachers in the school, working an additional 100 hours per year.  A Turnaround Teacher working in a PLA school will receive 15% above their base salary and open their classroom up to other teachers to learn best practices, working an additional 30 hours per year.  To remain eligible for either position, teachers must maintain a rating of “highly effective.”

Under the “restart” model, schools will be teamed with a non-profit educational partner organization (EPO) that will work with the principal and school staff to make recommendations on specific interventions to raise student achievement. This model does not require leadership or staff changes, but also allows for the hiring of master and turnaround teachers.  All proposed changes from the EPO will need to conform to collective bargaining agreements.

The City will work with the schools over the next week to determine which model suits the 33 schools best.  The following is the full list of schools:

02M460           WASHINGTON IRVING HIGH SCHOOL
02M500           UNITY CENTER FOR URBAN TECHNOLOGIES
02M615           CHELSEA CAREER AND TECH ED HS
05M685           BREAD & ROSES INTEGRATED ARTS HIGH SCHOOL
08X405           HERBERT H LEHMAN HIGH SCHOOL
08X530           BANANA KELLY HIGH SCHOOL
09X022           JHS 22 JORDAN L MOTT
09X339           IS 339
09X412           BRONX HIGH SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
10X080           JHS 80 MOSHOLU PARKWAY
10X391           MS 391
10X660           GRACE H DODGE CAREER AND TECH HS
14K126           JOHN ERICSSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 126
14K610           AUTOMOTIVE HIGH SCHOOL
15K136           IS 136 CHARLES O DEWEY
15K429           SCHOOL FOR GLOBAL STUDIES
15K519           COBBLE HILL SCHOOL OF AMERICAN STUDIES
16K455           BOYS & GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
19K166           JHS 166 GEORGE GERSHWIN
20K505           FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT HIGH SCHOOL
21K540           JOHN DEWEY HIGH SCHOOL
21K620           WILLIAM E GRADY VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
22K495           SHEEPSHEAD BAY HIGH SCHOOL
32K564           BUSHWICK COMM HIGH SCHOOL
24Q455           NEWTOWN HIGH SCHOOL
24Q485           GROVER CLEVELAND HIGH SCHOOL
24Q600           QUEENS VOCATIONAL & TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOL
25Q460           FLUSHING HIGH SCHOOL
27Q400           AUGUST MARTIN HIGH SCHOOL
27Q475           RICHMOND HILL HIGH SCHOOL
27Q480           JOHN ADAMS HIGH SCHOOL
30Q445           WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT HIGH SCHOOL
30Q450           LONG ISLAND CITY HIGH SCHOOL

study says...

In new study of school-district effectiveness, New York City falls just below national average

PHOTO: Stephanie Snyder

Each year, state test scores offer a snapshot of how much New York City students have learned. But they say little about how the city’s schools stack up against other districts’, in part because the raw scores largely reflect student demographics — wealthier districts tend to have higher scores.

Now, a major new analysis of several years of test scores from across the country provides a better way to judge and compare districts: Instead of looking at a single moment, it shows how well school systems help students grow their skills over time.

Based on that measure, New York City falls just below the middle of the pack: In the five years from third to eighth grade, its students collectively make about 4.6 grade levels of progress — landing New York in the 35th percentile of districts nationally. By contrast, Chicago students advance the equivalent of six grades within those five years, giving the district one of the highest growth rates in the country.

Still, New York is slightly above average when compared to other large districts with many students from low-income families. And it trounces the state’s other urban districts — including Yonkers, Syracuse, and Rochester, which have some of the nation’s worst growth rates.

“Among big poor districts, it’s better than average,” said Sean Reardon, the Stanford University researcher who conducted the analysis. “In the grand scheme, it’s pretty middle-of-the-road.”

Reardon’s analysis — based on 300 million standardized tests taken by students across more than 11,000 school districts from 2009 to 2015 — is the largest of its kind. It looks both at student proficiency on third-grade math and English tests (that is, what share of students earned a score deemed “proficient”) and student growth between grades three and eight (how much their scores improved over time). Reardon’s research was supported by several foundations, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which also provides funding to Chalkbeat.

The analysis controls for the differences in tests across states and over time by converting scores into a common scale that measures growth in grade levels, making it possible to compare nearly every district in the country to one another. (It excludes New York’s scores from 2015 and some grades in 2014 because of the high number of students who boycotted the state tests those years. However, each district’s five-year growth rates is actually an average of its year-over-year growth, so Reardon was still able to calculate a five-year rate for New York.)

Experts generally prefer growth rates over proficiency as a way to evaluate school quality, since growth measures the progress students make in school rather than where they started. Even if a district enrolls many poor students who are less likely than their affluent peers to hit the “proficiency” benchmark, its schools can still help them advance at a rate comparable to or even better than schools filled with wealthier students.

“Growth is way better than achievement,” said Douglas Ready, an education and public policy professor at Teachers College, Columbia University. “We know low-income students start school behind — the question is what do school districts do with the kids they get?”

New York’s growth rate falls just below the national median of 4.8 grade levels. Among big districts, its students made gains similar to those in Dallas and Detroit, and greater than students in Los Angeles, Miami, and Indianapolis.

By contrast, Rochester ranks rock-bottom nationally. In that high-poverty district, where the median income among families with children in the public schools is $26,000, students advanced about three grade levels in five years. Yonkers’ $48,000 median income is much higher, yet its schools barely do better, with students moving just 3.5 grade levels. (Among New York City public-school parents, the median income is $42,000.)

Reardon emphasized that test scores provide an important but incomplete picture of student learning, and growth rates are an imperfect measure of school effectiveness since factors outside of the classroom also influence how much students learn over time.

Still, he argued that officials who rate schools and parents who choose them would do much better to look at a school’s growth rate over its average test scores. In fact, he said, a focus on growth rates could theoretically drive down socioeconomic segregation since higher-income parents might be willing to enroll their children in schools with many poor students and low overall test scores if the schools nonetheless had outstanding growth rates.

Ready, however, pointed out that even when schools and districts are highly effective at helping students make progress, they are still unlikely to close the yawning achievement gaps that separate most poor and wealthier students from the time they start school. Reardon came to the same conclusion.

“The large gaps in students’ academic skills between low- and higher-[socioeconomic status] districts are so large,” Reardon’s analysis says, “that even the highest growth rate in the country would be insufficient to close even half of the gap by eighth grade.”

In response to the analysis, New York City education department officials pointed to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a standardized test taken by a representative sample of students in each state and certain districts, including New York. Only one other district among the country’s 10 largest cities performed better in reading and math than New York, which had the highest share of low-income students reach the proficient level on the reading test.

“Our schools are the strongest they’ve ever been, with record-high graduation and college enrollment rates, and improving state test scores,” said the district’s spokesman, Will Mantell.

change up

Just as Lower East Side integration plan takes off, superintendent who helped craft it steps down

PHOTO: Christina Veiga
Carry Chan, left, will become acting superintendent in District 1 when Daniella Phillips, right, leaves this month to join the central education department.

The longtime superintendent of the Manhattan community district where parents pushed for a plan to desegregate the local schools is stepping down just as the plan gets underway.

After a decade at the helm of District 1, which includes the Lower East Side and East Village, Superintendent Daniella Phillips is leaving to join the central education department, Chalkbeat has learned. During the yearslong campaign for an integration plan, Phillips acted as a liaison between parents and the education department, which finally approved a new admissions system for the district’s elementary schools this fall.

She will be replaced by Carry Chan, who has also played a role in the district’s diversity efforts as the interim head of a new Family Resource Center, an information hub to help district parents sort through their school options. Chan takes over as acting superintendent on Dec. 18.

The leadership change comes at a crucial time for the district, which also includes a portion of Chinatown. Parents are currently applying to elementary schools, marking the first admissions cycle under the new enrollment system. Under the system, schools give certain students admissions priority based on their economic status and other factors, with the goal of every elementary school enrolling share of disadvantaged students similar to the district average.

It will be up to the new superintendent to help schools recruit and welcome a greater mix of families, and to help steer parents towards a wider range of schools. Advocates hope the district can become a model for the city.

“There is a torch that needs to be carried in order to really, fully execute,” said Naomi Peña, president of the district’s parent council. “The next superintendent has to be a champion for the mission and the cause.”

During heated public meetings, Phillips tried to keep the peace while serving as a go-between for frustrated integration advocates and reluctant education department officials. The tensions sometimes boiled over, with advocates directing their anger at Phillips — though they were eventually won-over and endorsed the final integration plan.

In her new role, she will oversee school consolidations as part of the education department’s Office of School Design and Charter Partnerships. In District 1, Phillips helped steer three such mergers, which often involve combining small, low-performing schools with ones that are higher achieving.

“It has been such a joy and privilege to be District 1 superintendent for over 10 years, and I’m excited for this next chapter in the district and my career,” Phillips said in an emailed statement.

Chan is a former principal who launched the School for Global Leaders, a middle school that focuses on community service projects and offers Mandarin classes. Last year, she joined the education department’s Manhattan support center, where she helped schools form partnerships in order to learn from one another.

Since October, Chan has served as the interim director of District 1’s Family Resource Center, which is seen as an integral part of making the new diversity plan work. Families must apply for seats in the district’s elementary schools, which do not have attendance zones like other districts. The family center aims to arm families with more information about their options, in the hopes that they will consider schools they may not have previously.

“I think we’re all really passionate about this plan and we really want this to work,” Chan said. “Communication is the key, and being transparent with how we’re progressing with this work.”