Notes from the Field
Submitted by Frank Murphy, November 25, 2010
The Philadelphia School Annual Reports are now posted on the districts web site. This is the second year that this document been published. A cover letter that accompanies the report states, in part, the following:
“As a commitment to improving education for our children, the School District of Philadelphia’s Office of Accountability has developed School Annual Reports. The purpose of these reports is to create consistent, publicly transparent performance measures for our schools.”
What is on the Annual Reports?
Schools are rated on their performance in four different categories:
• Student Achievement: measures academic performance through student report card marks and PSSA test scores.
• School Operations: measures the school’s ability to maintain a positive learning environment.
• Community Satisfaction: measures student, teacher, and parent satisfaction with the school through surveys.
• School-Specific Indicators: shows progress on goals where the school has shown improvement.
By looking at schools in this way, the public is provided with a more comprehensive report on the progress of schools within the School District of Philadelphia.”
Every school in the district receives its own individual report. The number of categories on which a school receives a rating varies, depending on the student sub groups it serves (socio economic, race, special education) and the grade configurations of the school (elementary, middle school, high school, etc). For each descriptor or indicator on which a school is rated, a performance baseline was established and a targeted percentage of increase was assigned for that item.
In the case of Central High School for example, the baseline for the percentage of students achieving at the proficient or advanced level for math in the 2009 school year was 98.1%. It was expected that this percentage would increase to 98.2% for the 2010 school year. The expected percentage increase was obtained this year, so Central High School met the target for this indicator. According to the information provided on its annual school report, Central’s overall district rating is at the above average level.
Interestingly, despite its overall above average performance, Central failed to meet many of its internal school specific targets. In total, Central received a grade on 33 different indicators. The school reached its target goal for only 19 of the 33. Overall, the school achieved 57% of the objectives established for it by the central administration.
Upon closer examination of the data however, any reasonable person would reject the notion that this school is a failure. The school did not reach its target for teacher daily attendance. The target was 97.8%. The actual teacher attendance rate was 97.5%. If the goal was for the staff at this school to be in regular attendance, it appears that this goal was met. The student drop out rate was not to exceed 0.2%. The actual rate was 0.3%. This percentage most likely represented one student. The school was also expected to have 0% percent of its students scoring at below basic in math. In actuality the percentage was 0.4%. Again this represents about one or two students out of hundreds. Central’s failure to reach the target in eleven other areas was the result of not achieving similar hair-splitting objectives.
Many other schools also failed to make their targets in a number of areas. Masterman High school made 66% of its targets; GAMP, 67%; Franklin Learning Center 56%; Greenfield 44%; Meredith 73%. These are schools whose students consistently achieve at high academic levels. Masterman and Franklin Learning Center were just recognized by the U. S,. Department of Education as Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence.
On the other hand, schools such as Meade that have demonstrated considerable improvement during the course of the year are not sufficiently credited for their progress. Despite the fact that it serves one of the lowest resourced communities in the city, Meade met 81% of its targets. Additionally, Meade made AYP on the state test thus maintaining its AYP status for six years in a row. These accomplishments though significant, have not resulted in Meade being removed from the Empowerment School or Renaissance Alert list. These are two classifications that were abruptly assigned to Meade by Dr. Ackerman in February of last year.
So how exactly is a consistent, publicly transparent process for measuring the performance of schools being created when high achieving schools are portrayed as not meeting standards and striving schools are not credited with obtaining significant school improvements?
This process provides little tangible benefit for most schools and for many it tarnishes their reputation. It manipulates data for the purpose of characterizing public schools in a negative manner. This is a tactic used by school reformers whose intention it is to dismantle the public school system
If this annual school report system is truly a well-intentioned effort, then its objectives should be more realistic. It should take into consideration the unique nature of each school community before making a determination regarding its success or failure. Schools that make progress, along with ones that are consistently high performing, should be equally recognized.
Although its stated purpose was to “create consistent, publicly transparent performance measures for our schools”, so far the annual report card’s only use has been in the evaluation of principals. Last year, principals’ ratings were partially based on how many targets their schools made. The report’s information was used to leverage principal compliance to the central administration’s agenda. It criticized school-based leaders in a specific and public manner and put them on notice that they were accountable for everything and anything the central administration dictated.
This degree of accountability does not exist for the leaders of the central administration. An overall report card for the district’s performance is not published. As a district, Philadelphia is now entering its eighth year in Corrective Action II. Yet nowhere is this failure addressed.
Shouldn’t the public expect that the district superintendent and her team be held to the same level of public accountability that they impose on school principals and their teams?