Notes from the Field
Submitted by Frank Murphy, Jan 11, 2011
The School Performance Index (SPI) rankings for Philadelphia’s elementary, middle and high schools are now posted on the district’s web site. The unveiling of this information is a precursor to the upcoming announcement of schools that will be placed on this years Renaissance Eligible and Renaissance Alert list.
Last year Meade Elementary School was placed on the alert list. This designation came as a surprise to the staff and community supporters of Meade. There were numerous positive accomplishments that this school community had achieved over an extended period of time. Most significantly Meade had been recognized for having made Adequate Yearly Progress for several years in a row. Despite an abundance of data indicating the school was serving its students well, Meade was rated 10-7 on the School Performance Index in 2009. The best rating that a school could receive on this index is 1-1. The worst rating is 10-10.
In the spring of the 2010 school year, student achievement scores dramatically increased at Meade. Meade’s PSSA test results can be found here and its annual school report card can be found here (under the listing AD-8 Caulk). A review of the school’s annual report will show that all of the academic achievement and growth targets set by the district for Meade students were either met or exceeded by them. As a result, Meade School has been ranked this year in the top 25% of schools that showed growth in improving PSSA test scores in both math and reading. I expected to see a greatly improved Meade SPI ranking this year. I was disappointed.
Meade’s 2010 SPI ranking is 9-7. Once again the school community and myself are baffled by this result. When I examined the achievement results of other district K-8 schools my confusion only grows.
As a point of illustration, here is a list of the achievement results and SPI rankings of a sample of other Philadelphia K-8 schools in comparison to Meade School. Meade is the only school in this group that has been identified as a Renaissance Alert School.
| Meade | Kinsey | Anderson | Bregy | Leidy | Blankenburg | Morrison | Ferguson | |
| PSSA/Proficiency
MATH |
56.4% | 42.5% | 40.1% | 51.4% | 44.3% | 51.9% | 51.3% | 55.6% |
| PSSA/Proficiency
READING |
44.8% | 41.3% | 37.6% | 40.4% | 38.5% | 40.4% | 44.7% | 48.9% |
| PSSA/Below Basic
MATH |
24.6% | 34.5% | 29.5% | 23.3% | 27.8% | 26.8% | 24.9% | 22.9% |
| PSSA/Below Basic
READING |
33% | 39.5% | 36.7% | 29.5% | 32.1% | 36.6% | 31.5% | 25.1% |
| Achievement Gap
MATH |
18.6 | 32.5 | 34.9 | 23.0 | 28.1 | 23.1 | 26.1 | 19 |
| Achievement Gap
READING |
23.8 | 26.6 | 30.9 | 29.5 | 28.0 | 28.3 | 25.9 | 20 |
| PSSS Growth
MATH by grade level |
4/5 | 1/5 | 0/5 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 |
| PSSS Growth
READING by grade level |
4/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 | 1/5 |
| SPI index/score | 9-7 | 8-8 | 8-7 | 7-7 | 7-5 | 7-5 | 7-4 | 6-5 |
| AYP/status | AYP | S.I. 1 | C.A.II 5 | W | AYP | S.I. 1 | C.A.II 7 | C.A.II 5 |
After reviewing this data I am even more puzzled. Among the schools listed, Meade School had top proficiency scores in Reading and Math and was one of only two schools to make AYP. Meade’s achievement gaps were also among the lowest noted in the group. Meade was additionally the only school to have 4 out of 5 of its grade levels achieve its PSSA growth indicators. In light of the information shown in this table, how then did Meade School receive the lowest SPI ranking of the listed schools? An explanation from the Office of Assessment and Accountability is certainly in order. It is doubtful it will be given.
Last year the staff of Meade School requested a second review of the data that was used to classify Meade as a Renaissance Alert school. Dr. Ackerman responded that neither she nor anyone from her staff would meet with the Meade School staff in order to review the schools data.
“They had low expectations for their students’ performance”, Dr. Ackerman stated to me. They are not entitled to meet with me.” Looking at the current ranking her staff has slapped on the school, I suspect that if asked, she will once again refuse to meet with the Meade teachers.
To ask for an explanation regarding how a ranking system can so ignore the achievements of a school organization is a fair request. To deny it suggests that there isn’t a good answer. If this is so, than what is the point of the School Performance Index other than creating yet another way to label schools as failures?
Tom Hoffman
January 11, 2011 at 9:02 am
We had a similar experience at the high school in Providence I helped start and where my wife still worked last year. It was worse, really, because on top of everything else, as far as anyone could tell, the scoring didn’t take into account the most recent test scores — which in our case went up significantly. The school ended up being closed.
Anyhow… I did manage to dig up a description of how the scoring system in RI works, which I posted here:
http://www.tuttlesvc.org/2010/08/rides-approved-definition-of.html
Basically, it is insensitive by design. I suspect that other apparently nonsensical scores and rankings may be operating similarly. I wonder if the rationale for structuring this kind of system in this way is ever explained or discussed in writing anywhere.
I suspect not. Probably just part of the McKinsey/Broad oral tradition.
Lisa Kelly
January 13, 2011 at 5:25 am
This sounds similar to last year’s inexplicable rating of West Philly as Renaissance material. Just looking at the independent evaluator’s report showed that West was already doing all the things which would be expected to improve climate, attendance, etc., which then lead to test improvement (which, it bears repeating, should not ever be the only way a school is judged). Finding themselves on that list effectively drove that school back to the very beginning, as far as cohesive staff, a master plan and a feeling of trust among the school community.
And why would a leader refuse to speak to any school’s concerned stakeholders? To whom are we all accountable, if not to everyone involved?
Bobbie
January 23, 2011 at 9:39 am
It is obvious from the data here and the data from 2009 that the SPI is flawed at best and deceptive at worst. The district may have an ulterior motive to target Meade. Of course having a school like Meade on their list of Renaissance Schools would give them an upward progression on their own data collection giving the public perception that the Renaissance program is working. Another possibility would be the location of Meade school relevant to the Temple U campus. Property values have sky rocketed in that area as Temple grows and the surrounding neighborhood has begun to gentrify. Wanamaker sold for a considerable amount of money. Maybe a possible “Penn-Alexander” type of school for the Temple professor’s children? In any case, there is something suspicious about the SPI, especially since staff and community are not privy to a response from the district regarding public information. It dovetails with the current administration and the climate of fear and punishment that reigns at 440. How many other schools on the Eligible list have been subject to this ridiculous SPI? I would suggest that someone bring this to the media for inspection, but alas that would only get someone suspended or fired.