late arrivals

Students were allowed to enroll in some of the city’s lowest-performing schools — even after they were slated for closure

PHOTO: Alex Zimmerman
Monroe Academy for Visual Arts and Design, a Renewal school, was closed last year.

When New York City’s education department announced plans to close a handful of struggling schools in Mayor Bill de Blasio’s turnaround program, they argued the schools were simply too low-performing to stay open.

But while officials were making that argument, students were still being sent to them. In total, 25 students were allowed to enroll across at least some of the six closing Renewal schools after January 1. The full closure plans became public January 6.

Those who enroll after the traditional admissions process is over — referred to as “over-the-counter” students — are often among the hardest students to serve. Many are behind academically, are recent immigrants, have experienced homelessness, or were previously incarcerated.

The city’s decision to allow late-arriving students to enroll in schools they planned to close likely does them a disservice, multiple experts said.

“If they’re going to take the drastic and final step of closing a school, it means that they’ve decided that this school is so limited in what it does for kids that it shouldn’t stay open anymore,” said Norm Fruchter, an NYU researcher who authored a study about how the city assigns late-arriving students, and is generally supportive of de Blasio’s education policies. “Why send any more kids there?”

Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña has vowed to reduce the number of mid-year students sent to Renewal schools, and the department previously banned several of the city’s most troubled schools from receiving them.

“The policy makes sense,” Fruchter added. “This seems to violate that.”

Fruchter and others acknowledged that deciding where to place the tens of thousands of students who arrive on the education department’s doorstep in the middle of each school year is a challenge.

At the high school level, which is governed by a complex application process, the most desirable schools often have few slots available mid-year, significantly limiting the options for those who arrive late. His research has shown those students are disproportionately sent to struggling schools, which tend to have more open seats.

In the context of the city’s Renewal program, late arrivals pose a difficult catch-22. Many of the schools in the turnaround program are struggling to attract new students, which would bring additional funding. But those schools are perhaps least able to handle an influx of students who are likely to need additional help.

It isn’t a new problem. The Bloomberg administration also struggled to find seats for students who arrived mid-year, and disproportionately placed them in schools that were later closed, or were already undergoing that process.

Deidre Walker has seen that tension play out at her own school. A math teacher at J.H.S. 145 in the Bronx, one of the schools that will be closed next year and received new students, Walker said latecomers are often still learning English or require services like occupational therapy. The school, she said, isn’t always able to meet their needs.

“If you continue to send more and more students that need more and more services in a situation where people are struggling, you need to send more bodies that can deal with the demand,” she said, noting that her school only has one English as a Second Language teacher. “That’s not happening.”

Concern that the school did not receive sufficient resources despite being in the city’s Renewal program was a constant refrain during its contentious closure process.

Michael Aciman, an education department spokesman, said in a statement that mid-year placements are “determined on a case-by-case basis to meet the needs of individual students and families. All students attending a Renewal school slated for closure will have a seat at a higher performing school next year.”

Officials noted that the closure plans for five of the six schools were not officially approved until March, so “these schools were subject to the same enrollment guidelines as other Renewal schools.”

Members of multiple schools that will be closed next year expressed surprise that the city would continue to send students to the schools it planned to dismantle. A teacher at Monroe Academy for Visual Arts and Design, a Bronx high school which has received 11 students since January 1, said she didn’t understand the city’s rationale for sending them more students.

And a senior leader at a community organization that partners with one of the soon-to-be-closed schools, said “it’s hard to imagine a justifiable reason” for the decision. “Those students will inevitably need to start anew again in just six months’ time.”

Other observers were more circumspect. Aaron Pallas, a professor at Teachers College, said that given the thousands of students who are assigned mid-year, sending 25 to closing schools did not seem like a large number.

It is possible that there were logistical reasons for sending them. Some may have been previously enrolled in those schools, for instance, the situation of at least one student who enrolled at J.H.S. 145 in the middle of this year. For others, it could have been the closest school or one that enabled them to stay with a sibling.

“Over-the-counter students are sometimes hard to place,” he said, adding: “It’s hard to know in this case what the logic was.”

closures ahead

As New York City prepares to close more struggling ‘Renewal’ schools, here’s what we know about ones they’ve shuttered before

PHOTO: Alex Zimmerman
Monroe Academy for Visual Arts and Design, a Renewal school, was closed last year.

In the coming days, struggling schools in the city’s “Renewal” improvement program will learn whether they get more time to mount a comeback — or will be shut down for good.

New York City education officials are expected to announce soon which of the low-performing schools will close at the end of this academic year. The decision will have enormous consequences for students and teachers who will have to find new schools — and will likely rekindle debate about the effectiveness of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s $582 million effort to turn around troubled schools by infusing them with social services and academic support.

As the Renewal program passed its third birthday in November — a date by which the mayor promised to decide which schools aren’t measuring up — officials have been tight-lipped about which schools are on the chopping block.

Chalkbeat analyzed the previous rounds of closures — nine schools out of the original 94 — to understand which schools might be targeted this time. Perhaps the clearest finding is that it’s difficult to predict which schools the city will shutter.

While all the closed schools had very low graduation rates and test scores, so do other Renewal schools that were spared. The analysis shows there are no strict rules about which schools are shut down and which are given more time to turn around.

That said, here are some takeaways from previous Renewal school closures:

Almost all the closed schools struggled to retain students.

Seven of the nine closed schools enrolled fewer students in the year they were shuttered than when they entered the Renewal program in 2014 — and six shed more than a fifth of their students.

Many of the schools had struggled to recruit and retain students even before the program started — once it did, the schools struggled to staunch the flow. The city considers such shrinkage an existential problem; officials have suggested that schools with fewer than 250 students can become unsustainable since school funding is based partly on enrollment.

Six of the closed schools enrolled fewer than 200 students their final year — including Brooklyn’s M.S. 584, which lost about 25 percent of its population since the Renewal program started, leaving it with just 78 students.

Meeting the city’s goals doesn’t guarantee survival.

The city assigned each Renewal school annual goals around attendance, graduation rates, test scores, and other measures. (The goals have been criticized as overly modest.)

In the past, officials have said “all options are on the table” — including closure — for schools that fail to meet their goals. But those the city has actually shuttered have been all over the map.

For instance, the city closed the Bronx’s Leadership Institute the year after it hit 71 percent of its goals — more than most schools in the program. At the other end of the spectrum, it shuttered Monroe Academy for Visual Arts and Design, which met just 14 percent of its goals.

In the past, education department officials have said they consider a range of factors when deciding which schools to close, including their academic performance, feedback from families, staff turnover, and previous improvement efforts.

“When making decisions about school closures we carefully assess each school based on multiple measures,” department spokesman Michael Aciman said in an email. “In every case where we’ve proposed a closure, we’ve prioritized family engagement and guaranteed that every student has higher-performing school options.”

However, the mix of factors means it isn’t clear which schools are most at risk of closure. The fact that some were shuttered after meeting most of their city-issued goals only adds to the mystery.

Small gains in graduation rates and test scores aren’t enough.

A handful of shuttered Renewal high schools had boosted their graduation rates while they were in the program, while some middle schools got more students to pass the state exams.

However, the gains were usually small and the majority of students were still struggling.

At the Essence School, the share of students who passed the reading tests more than doubled since it became a Renewal school. But even with that bump, still only 5 percent passed. Meanwhile, math proficiency barely ticked up to 3 percent.

At the high-school level, every shuttered Renewal school saw an uptick in graduation rates.

The increases ranged from 5 to 17 percentage points. However, because most of the schools enrolled were relatively small, they could boost their graduation rates by several points simply by helping a few additional students earn diplomas.

And the schools with the biggest gains — a 17 point jump at Foundations Academy and a 13 point spike at Foreign Language Academy of Global Studies — came at schools with serious enrollment challenges. In their final year, both served fewer than 100 students.

research report

Three years in, some signs of (slight) academic growth at struggling ‘Renewal’ schools

PHOTO: Patrick Wall
Mayor Bill de Blasio at Brooklyn Generation School — part of the Renewal program

When Mayor Bill de Blasio launched an aggressive and expensive campaign to turn around the city’s lowest performing schools, he made a big promise: Schools would see “fast and intense” improvements within three years.

Almost exactly three years later, and after flooding 78 schools with more than $386 million in new social services and academic support, there are signs that the Renewal program has generated gains in student learning. The evidence is based on two newly updated analyses of test score data — one from Marcus Winters, a fellow at the conservative-learning Manhattan Institute, and the other from Aaron Pallas, a professor at Teachers College.

But the researchers caution that those improvements are modest — when they exist at all — and don’t yet match the mayor’s lofty promises.

The results may have implications far beyond New York City, as a national and political test case of whether injecting struggling schools with resources is more effective than closing them.

The two researchers previously reviewed the first two years of test score data in elementary and middle schools in the Renewal program: Winters found a positive effect on test scores, while Pallas generally found little to no effect.

Now, as the program reaches its third birthday, the pair of researchers have updated their findings with new test score data from last school year, and largely reaffirmed their earlier conclusions.

“We’re not seeing large increases” in student achievement, Pallas said. “And the reality is it’s hard to get large increases in struggling schools.”

Some advocates have argued that it is too early to expect big shifts in test scores, and that infusing schools with extra social services like mental health counseling and vision screenings are valuable in themselves. But de Blasio’s promise of quick academic turnaround has invited questions about Renewal’s effectiveness and whether resources can be more effective in improving low-performing schools than shuttering them.

To assess the program’s academic effect, Pallas compared changes in Renewal school test scores to other schools that had similar test results and student demographics when the program started, but did not receive extra support.

The biggest gains Pallas found were concentrated at the elementary level.

Over the past three school years, 20 elementary schools in the Renewal program have made larger gains on average in math and reading than 23 similar schools that didn’t get extra resources. The proportion of elementary school students considered proficient in reading at Renewal schools increased from 7 percent in 2014 to 18 percent last year — an 11-point jump. Meanwhile, the comparison schools also saw gains, but only by seven percentage points, giving Renewal schools a four percentage point advantage.

At the middle school level, the results are less encouraging. The 45 Renewal middle schools did not collectively outperform a group of 50 similar schools outside the program in reading or math.

In math, for instance, Renewal school students improved from 5 percent proficient to 7 percent. However, the comparison schools outside the program improved by roughly the same margin — increasing proficiency from 6 to 9 percent (and still far below city average). In reading, Renewal middle schools showed slightly less growth than the comparison group.

City officials have argued that Pallas’ findings are misleading partly because Renewal schools and the comparison schools are not actually comparable. Renewal schools, they say, were designated based on a range of factors like school climate or teacher effectiveness, not just student demographics and test scores.

“The schools included in the study are neither similar nor comparable in quality and a comparison of the two dissimilar groups is unreliable at best,” Michael Aciman, an education department spokesman, said in a statement. Aciman added that Renewal schools have made larger gains in reading and math than similar schools across the state, and have made progress in reducing chronic absenteeism and improving instruction.

Pallas notes that there are some limitations to his approach, and acknowledges that he could not account for some differences between the two groups, such as the quality of a school’s principal. He also does not use student-level data, for instance, which would allow a more fine-grained analysis of whether the Renewal program is boosting student achievement. But Pallas, and other researchers who have previously reviewed his data, have said his model is rigorous.

The Manhattan Institute’s Winters found more positive trends than Pallas, consistent with his earlier findings. Using an approach that evaluates whether Renewal schools are outperforming historical trends compared with schools outside the program, Winters found that the Renewal program appeared to have a statistically significant effect on both reading and math scores — roughly equivalent to the difference in student achievement between charter schools and traditional district schools in New York City.

Asked about how to interpret the fact that his results tended to be more positive, Winters said either interpretation is plausible.

“It’s hard to tell which of these is exactly right,” he said. But “neither of us are finding results that are consistent with what we would expect if the program is having a large positive effect.”