Corrective action, 7th (70th, 700th) year?
by Paul Socolar on Sep 06 2009 Posted in Latest news
Now part of the back-to-school, end-of-summer routine, the state's 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results for schools were released last week.
The number of District schools meeting their AYP targets was 118, compared to 113 last year. Also up slightly was the number in Corrective Action II status (for five or more years of missing targets) - 76, eight more than last year. Charter schools did significantly better than District schools this year, with almost three-fourths meeting their targets.
One story that hasn't been written is that the District and 16 of its schools are now categorized by the state as in "Corrective Action II, 7th year."
Now part of the back-to-school, end-of-summer routine, the state's 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results for schools were released last week.
The number of District schools meeting their AYP targets was 118, compared to 113 last year. Also up slightly was the number in Corrective Action II status (for five or more years of missing targets) - 76, eight more than last year. Charter schools did significantly better than District schools this year, with almost three-fourths meeting their targets.
One story that hasn't been written is that the District and 16 of its schools are now categorized by the state as in "Corrective Action II, 7th year."
This is the case even though there actually is no such category under the No Child Left Behind law, nor is there a 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th year of Corrective Action.
NCLB says that Corrective Action II, 1st year, is a year for drawing up corrective action plans - with the school community - for the restructuring of a school that has failed to meet its targets for five years. Corrective Action II, 2nd year is the year that reorganization is supposed to take place. After the restructuring, schools are supposed to revert to the beginning of the AYP ladder (as the schools formed out of the break-up of Olney and Kensington did several years ago). But at most schools, there has been no formal corrective action
The fact that Philadelphia has dozens of schools that have been allowed to languish in Corrective Action for three to seven years suggests two things:
- that NCLB has failed to provide the guidance and resources or focus the attention necessary to draw up and implement plans to actually take corrective action - to restructure and turn around persistently low-performing schools, and/or
- that there has been a tacit consensus among decision-makers in the state and District that the unproven but still-fashionable restructuring options called for by NCLB (replacing the staff, charter conversion, privatization or state takeover) are not adequate to the challenge of turning around large numbers of persistently low-performing schools.
Superintendent Ackerman's response to the challenge is the just-launched Renaissance Schools initiative, which will attempt to turn around 10-12 schools per year. Some are hopeful that effort can assemble the know-how, the resources, and the will to successfully transform as many as 10 schools per year. But in any case, seven years into NCLB, there still is not the capacity to take corrective action on the scale that is needed in a district like Philadelphia.
AYP results for Philadelphia schools can be found here.
District- and school-level PSSA scores can be found here.
The Pennsylvania Dept of Ed is touting its steady progress as evidence of the importance of expanded school funding here.
The School District of Philadelphia did not do a release about the results, but The Inquirer reported on the results here.
Comments (1)
Submitted by Philly High School teacher (not verified) on Mon, 09/07/2009 - 06:29.
There are 3 "elephants in the room" that need to be addressed.
If we look at which schools are in Corrective Action (infinity), the subgroup that often has the most difficulty are students with an IEP. Schools which, otherwise, seem to be more successful on the PSSA, may also have the students with an IEP be the reason why the school did not make AYP. (This is assuming they have enough students with an IEP for the subgroup to even count). The process of working with students with an IEP has to change. My experience, as a regular ed teacher with included students (e.g. students with an IEP) is rather than adaptations to help enhance the students academic skills (e.g. to support them in being successful despite their learning disability), when a student struggles, the IEP is "dumbed down." In other words, if a student with an IEP is struggling with writing a coherent paragraph, I am told the IEP will be adjusted to not require the writing. (I've had students with an IEP only be required to attend school 70 - 80% of the time to pass. These are not students with "mental retardation.")
Philly is notorious for "dumbing down" an IEP to boost pass and graduation rates. I'm sure "downtown" will deny this but it happens all the time at the school level. The PSSA can't be "dumbed down" for the IEP. Yes, students with an IEP get a lot of support when they take the PSSA (e.g. questions are read to them, words are defined, they can take it one-on-one with a teacher, etc., etc.) but as long as the teacher is told "you can't require the students to do x, y, z in order to pass," then they are not prepared for the PSSA once they get to middle school and high school. Last year, I had two included high school students whose IEP stated they had to attend school 3 - 4 days per week, could arrive late (after advisory) every day, and were to pass regardless of what they did in class. Both of these students are very capable of learning - they progressed in my class. But, the IEP, over the years was "dumbed down" to ensure they would pass because they both had lousy attendance.
The other elephant in the room is the concentration of students with an IEP in neighborhood schools. The magnet/special admit schools only have to accept a limited number of students with an IEP and that is any kind of IEP. (e.g. a very capable student who, for example, has cerebral palsy, has an IEP but may do well academically) With the expansion of special selection high schools, the students with attendance, behavioral and academic "issues" are not going to be accepted on the pool of IEP students in a special select school. These schools will also "cream off the top" of the students with an IEP to add some to their schools. (Nevertheless, the percentage of students with an IEP in special select schools are very low to almost non-existent.)
Yes, Philly has a lot of choice on paper for high schools. Nevertheless, the system is set up to concentrate the most successful students in select schools. It is the epitome of educational tracking. This is compounded by the fact that any student who is in a discipline school, for example, is not credited to the discipline school for the sake of the PSSA. They are attributed to their neighborhood high school. This past year, dozens of students at each neighborhood high school scores were counted in the neighborhood high school's scores even if they student never went to the school. No special select school faces this dilemma. Only students who attend the special select school are attributed to its PSSA scores. I'd love to see what happens to Masterman, GAMP, Central, etc. if students who did not attend their school but lived in their general neighborhood had their scores attributed to the school. There would be an uproar. There is silence from "the powers that be" on how this is happening to neighborhood schools.
There are many changes that need to occur in schools which are persistently "not achieving" but there should be a more holistic assessment of what achievement includes and a realistic look at what happens in a system where tracking students is the norm beginning in elementary school (e.g. admission to Masterman and GAMP begins in 5th grade). We also have to realistic re-evaluate the goal of an IEP. Is to to ensure pass and graduation numbers are up or is it to prepare students with learning, emotional, etc. challenges to be prepared and equipped for adulthood. The School District of Philadelphia IEP process is often to benefit the system rather than the students.
Post new comment