put on the brakes

PEP okays special ed funding plan, despite requests for caution

As predicted, the Panel for Education Policy approved a budget formula Wednesday night meant to hasten the integration of special education students into general education classrooms.

But before the vote, Department of Education Deputy Chancellor Laura Rodriguez defended the spending plan — and the broader special education reforms that it is meant to facilitate — against charges that the city is asking schools to move too quickly on increasing inclusion of students with special needs. Critics say that Rodriguez’s departure from the Department of Education next month should cause the city to pause the reforms, which are set to go citywide this fall after being delayed once before.

Under the new formula, students who receive special education services for only a portion of the day would bring more city funds than students in self-contained settings for the entire day.

No one at the meeting opposed the objectives behind the Department of Education special education reforms. But some worried that lack of understanding about special education students could cause confusion for parents, students, and teachers alike.

“Everybody’s on the same page,”  said Wilfredo Pagan, the board member appointed by the Bronx borough president. “Most of us agree with the opportunity this reform brings to the table.”

“But let’s slow it down here and see how we’re going to re-approach this situation,” he said.

But Rodriguez said the integration of children with special needs cannot wait. She cited a large achievement gap between special education students and their general education peers, especially in graduation rates.

“By design, the work is urgent because the children haven’t done as well as we want them to do, and as they can do,” she said.

She said a pilot of the special education reforms in 250 schools resulted in increased integration of students with special needs into general education classes and a decreased number of students inappropriately labeled as having a disability. Past studies, she said, show special education students who spend time in standard classrooms achieve at higher rates.

But board member Dmytro Fedkowskyj questioned if one year of data from the pilot program was sufficient to justify such sweeping changes.

Rodriguez said it was, and that teacher training and a teacher task force — that met for the first time Wednesday morning — would help smooth the transition to increased integration. She said department officials were asking principals to focus on identifying teachers who would make good “matches” for classrooms that include students with special needs.

“We want to really focus on where the opportunities are and the teacher matches, and expand from there rather than change everything at once,” she said.

State Assemblyman Michael Benedetto, the chair of a subcommittee on students with special needs, spoke during the public comment period. A special education teacher for decades, Benedetto said he wholeheartedly supported the department’s reforms. But referring to a memo to principals that promised “intensive audits” of student placement decisions, Benedetto said he worries some of the department’s language sounds threatening,

“It could say, ‘Put the kids in the places we want them, or else,'” he said. “I’m sure that’s not the intention, but there are people out there who are worried,” he said.

The elected parent council from Manhattan’s District 2 wrote to Rodriguez with similar concerns last week. The council members also expressed concern that the budget formula would takes away money from special education students who need it the most.

But Michael Tragale, the Department of Education’s chief financial officer, stressed that schools will not find themselves with too little money to provide the services that students require.

“There is a sufficient money in existing per capita that will fund those programs, and the baseline budget will not be impacted,” he said.

Patrick Sullivan, the Manhattan borough president’s panel appointee, worried that the changes to the special education program facilitated by the new budget formula would not be properly implemented without Rodriguez’s expertise. Rodriguez leaves her post at the end of June.

But Chancellor Dennis Walcott said he was not worried, and that Corinne Rello-Anselmi is well qualified to take over as deputy chancellor. Rello-Anselmi began her career as a special education teacher but most recently was working in a different branch of the department.

“We’re lucky to have a timely transition,” Walcott said.

The board also voted in favor of the co-location of Leadership Preparatory Charter School at I.S. 211 and P.S. 279 in Canarsie. Parents and Assemblyman Nick Perry expressed concern that sharing space could hurt I.S. 211, one of the only schools in the district with an “A” on its city progress report.

And parents and students from the Bronx New School, P.S. 51, insisted Walcott meet with them about the toxin whose discovery prompted the department to relocate the school last summer. The parents have been a persistent presence at public meetings. Walcott and Deputy Chancellor Kathleen Grimm promised ongoing support for the families but urged them to seek aid from the Department of Health as well.

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.

Following the money

Tennessee school systems are getting the money they’re promised — more or less, state comptroller reports

A comprehensive review of funding for Tennessee schools found that almost every district received either too much or too little money this year based on the state’s formula for educating its children.

But in a budget of $4.5 billion for K-12 schools, the mistaken allocations were relatively small, and the review ostensibly verified that districts are receiving roughly what they’re supposed to under Tennessee’s Basic Education Program, or BEP.

The state comptroller’s report, released Thursday, said that allocations were slightly off for 141 out of 142 BEP-funded districts, based on the review by its Office of Research and Education Accountability. The discrepancies were mostly due to how districts reported their data on local funding capacity.

As a result, the state over-allocated almost $7 million and under-allocated almost $10 million. A spokeswoman said the Department of Education already has adjusted distributions accordingly.

This is the second year that the comptroller — charged with making sure that taxpayer money is used effectively and efficiently — has reviewed state spending on schools to make sure that allocations are in line with the BEP, a complex formula based on 45 components ranging from special education instruction to staff benefits and insurance.

“We spend over 4.5 billion state dollars on BEP, and it’s an enormous amount of money,” said Russell Moore, who directs the comptroller’s education oversight arm known as OREA. “That’s why Comptroller (Justin) Wilson has repeatedly emphasized the importance of making BEP spending transparent, understandable and verifiable.”

On that note, OREA has updated its interactive BEP calculator to allow anyone to estimate how changing components or ratios under the formula affect funding. For instance, how much would the state contribute toward adding school nurses under the BEP? The calculator, available for download on OREA’s website, provides a line-by-line breakdown of the BEP calculation for every school district.