Conflicting School Closing Criteria Perplex Officials, Teachers, Unions, Advocates
Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:21:00
Last November, the federal government ordered all states to compile a list of their “persistently lowest achieving” schools so they could become eligible to receive federal money—up to $500,000 per school in improvement grants and possibly more in Race to the Top funding.
In mid-January, the New York State Education Department identified 57. The following week, the New York City Department of Education released its own list of 19 schools facing closures.
Thirty-four of the schools on the state’s list were located in New York City, but only seven of those 34 appear on the city’s list of 19.
Confused? So are education advocates, labor groups and school administrators around the state, who say that in an effort to tighten standards and get a piece of federal money, state officials have failed to give clear guidelines on how districts can avoid closures.
“There are too many lists,” said Syracuse Schools Superintendent Dan Lowengard, who has three schools on the state’s list. “Besides superintendents and some principals, people don’t understand these lists. It’s way too complicated, and it doesn’t improve performance.”
Making matters worse is the fact that there is still another list coming, the School Under Registration Review list, or SURR, which contains yet another group of schools up for closure. SURR is the previous process through which the state closed schools in the pre-Obama administration days, and for the meantime remains in operation. To avoid getting on this list, schools must meet different criteria than from the current school closure list.
With all this uncertainty, schools, teachers and parents are growing frustrated with what they see as a Byzantine process.
“I have no idea about the criteria of the city,” said Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters, a non-profit that advocates smaller classes. “That hasn’t been made clear in any of their statements. Closures were not imposed on [schools] with the worst grades.”
Many see the state’s move to pursue federal stimulus money as one made in haste, further complicating a process already seen as inaccessible to and misunderstood by the public.
“The disconnect between lists and factors being used points to the need to be much more careful about evaluative statements we make about school districts, schools, parents or students,” said Richard Iannuzzi, president of New York State United Teachers. “Jumping for federal dollars before looking at all the factors should be looked at. Lists should match if there was a clearer way of identifying low- and underachieving schools.”
But according to Ira Schwartz, deputy commissioner of accountability at the State Education Department, things are clearer than some people have been making them out to be.
“This is a list of persistently low-achieving schools that the state has identified in order to be able to access considerable federal resources for New York State schools,” he said. “This is not a list of schools that must be closed.”
The state’s criteria requires that local school districts outline to the commissioner how they plan to improve a school on the commissioner’s list. Districts may respond by replacing the principal, firing half of the staff, converting into a charter, or, as a last resort, shutting the doors. The state does not, however, provide a timeline for when schools must make these kinds of changes.
The seven schools that appear both on the state’s and the city’s list do not have such flexibility. A spokesman for the New York City Department of Education said they are waiting for the State Education Department to formulate a plan for them.
But according to people like James Williams, the Buffalo schools superintendent, all that has been achieved so far is confusion and frustration.
“Chasing money is all we’re doing,” Williams said. “Every year it’s the flavor of the month. Educating children is not complicated. It’s about teaching and learning.”
In mid-January, the New York State Education Department identified 57. The following week, the New York City Department of Education released its own list of 19 schools facing closures.
Thirty-four of the schools on the state’s list were located in New York City, but only seven of those 34 appear on the city’s list of 19.
Confused? So are education advocates, labor groups and school administrators around the state, who say that in an effort to tighten standards and get a piece of federal money, state officials have failed to give clear guidelines on how districts can avoid closures.
“There are too many lists,” said Syracuse Schools Superintendent Dan Lowengard, who has three schools on the state’s list. “Besides superintendents and some principals, people don’t understand these lists. It’s way too complicated, and it doesn’t improve performance.”
Making matters worse is the fact that there is still another list coming, the School Under Registration Review list, or SURR, which contains yet another group of schools up for closure. SURR is the previous process through which the state closed schools in the pre-Obama administration days, and for the meantime remains in operation. To avoid getting on this list, schools must meet different criteria than from the current school closure list.
With all this uncertainty, schools, teachers and parents are growing frustrated with what they see as a Byzantine process.
“I have no idea about the criteria of the city,” said Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters, a non-profit that advocates smaller classes. “That hasn’t been made clear in any of their statements. Closures were not imposed on [schools] with the worst grades.”
Many see the state’s move to pursue federal stimulus money as one made in haste, further complicating a process already seen as inaccessible to and misunderstood by the public.
“The disconnect between lists and factors being used points to the need to be much more careful about evaluative statements we make about school districts, schools, parents or students,” said Richard Iannuzzi, president of New York State United Teachers. “Jumping for federal dollars before looking at all the factors should be looked at. Lists should match if there was a clearer way of identifying low- and underachieving schools.”
But according to Ira Schwartz, deputy commissioner of accountability at the State Education Department, things are clearer than some people have been making them out to be.
“This is a list of persistently low-achieving schools that the state has identified in order to be able to access considerable federal resources for New York State schools,” he said. “This is not a list of schools that must be closed.”
The state’s criteria requires that local school districts outline to the commissioner how they plan to improve a school on the commissioner’s list. Districts may respond by replacing the principal, firing half of the staff, converting into a charter, or, as a last resort, shutting the doors. The state does not, however, provide a timeline for when schools must make these kinds of changes.
The seven schools that appear both on the state’s and the city’s list do not have such flexibility. A spokesman for the New York City Department of Education said they are waiting for the State Education Department to formulate a plan for them.
But according to people like James Williams, the Buffalo schools superintendent, all that has been achieved so far is confusion and frustration.
“Chasing money is all we’re doing,” Williams said. “Every year it’s the flavor of the month. Educating children is not complicated. It’s about teaching and learning.”
