THE CENTERPIECE
“PROGRESS” ON PROGRESS REPORTS
As those of you who are with
schools authorized by the Department of Education now know, after much back and forth, the Department has decided that it will issue progress reports
publicly together with grades. These reports and grades will come out this week.
As I had indicated at a meeting of the charter coalition two weeks ago, the Center
is opposed to grades being issued this year—though not to charter schools getting grades—for two reasons.
First, charter schools had either not been given the opportunity to administer
“learning environment” surveys to parents and staff, or if they had, DoE hadn’t compiled that information in such a way to make
it usable. The results from those surveys make up 10 percent of the grade in the formula that DoE uses to grade the district
schools; given charter schools’ popularity with parents, the data from those surveys (if they existed) would likely be favorable to charter
schools. Not having that data in hand, DoE proposed changing the formula to weight the two state test-based components more
heavily.[1] It seemed to us that
this was unacceptable on general principles but even more so when the grades are, at their heart, a comparative measure meant to give parents and
others an apples-to-apples measure by which they could judge schools’ performance.
Second, we opposed issuing grades this year because the Department had begun this
exercise earlier this year indicating that it would not grade schools this year—or even make progress reports public.
Switching course mid-stream did not and does not seem fair.
The Center made its opposition known to the Office of Charter Schools, the
Office of Portfolio Development and to the Chancellor personally. We had frank and candid exchanges of views (as the diplomats say) and I know that
our arguments were considered carefully. In the end, however, the decision was made not just by the Chancellor but at the highest
level of the municipal governmental food chain. So, despite our efforts, some charters will receive grades this year.
This is not to say that taking on this issue was entirely in vain.
Due to our arguments (and similar arguments made by some individual schools) the formula has changed and, it appears, for the better. Now, 15
percent of the grade will be based on a school’s attendance rates; we understand that the net result of this change was that two
schools’ grades improved and none was reduced. Of course, charter schools, and the public, will never know whether the scenario would have
been even more favorable if survey data had been generated and used in the same way it was for district schools. We suppose
theoretically, but sincerely doubt it, that it could have been worse. And we must still contend with the inevitable disclaimer
that the grades are not comparable, which begs the question of what the exercise is about.
Whatever our disappointment at the outcome (and of little comfort to those schools
that oppose issuance), the fact is that the overall picture for charters is enormously favorable and yet another indicator of charter school success
here in New York. When the grades come out it will be clear that the percentage of charters that received A’s
and B’s far exceeds the comparable percentages for district schools. We should celebrate that fact loudly
given that the press will take note of it.
The question now becomes how best to move forward.
Clearly, the grading system has its flaws, those generally, and those that may be of particular issue to charter schools. It has, in the last
two weeks, come in for quite a lambasting, (please click here to read articles on progress reports). Clearly as well, the
Department has indicated publicly a willingness to reassess both the formula it uses and the process it employs in gathering data. There is even a
hint that grades might be multiple.
Charter schools should have an active voice in seeing that the grades are done
right. At the same time we must ensure that if district schools are graded, charters should, at the very least, have an opportunity to get graded
too, using the same standards, the same data and the same process. Over the next month, the Center will be looking to establish a
working group made up of charter schools and experts, who can help us make our arguments. The alternative to engagement and active
involvement is a system in which charters will be perceived as the accountability movement that eschews accountability. That the movement can ill
afford.
*
* *
As we close out 2007, we continue to see signs of opposition around us.
Charter applicants continue to be asked to jump through ever more hoops, most of which have little to do with determining capacity—and many of
which appear designed to shove them into the same box in which district schools are stuck. Schools are often over monitored by too
many entities; and upstate, districts continue to blame us for the woes that preceded charters and that would succeed them if charters went
away.
Still something has shifted in this state from 1998 to 2007.
Charters are more and more accepted as having a place at the table—if only the one for kids (which seems oddly
appropriate). We have gone from a movement in which people thought they could make us disappear, to one in which the efforts are
now more focused at taming us and containing us. Your unbelievable energy, talent and obstreperousness will make sure they do not
succeed.
With that happy thought in mind, we wish you a very restful holiday
break. See you in the New Year.
James Merriman
jmerriman@nycchartercenter.org
[1] The grades are a result of four measures: outcomes
from the learning environment surveys (10%); attendance (5%); percentage of students at proficient as compared to “peer” schools and
schools city-wide (30%); and aggregate improvement of cohorts as compared to “peer” schools and schools city-wide (55%).
