You are on page 1of 17

Receivership

:
Major Change Needed to Boost Student
Success
Democrats for Education Reform - New York !1
July 2018
DFER NEW YORK

Modeled loosely after Massachusetts’ school turnaround policy, New York’s Receivership
Schools program was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that has been hollowed out in its
implementation. In this report we explore how a strong policy on paper has driven little results in New
York’s lowest-performing schools.

Overview

Passed as part of the Education Transformation Act of Regardless of the type, Receivers are granted
2015, the state of New York signed into law its school extraordinary authority and autonomy in order to make
turnaround program known as Receivership Schools. aggressive interventions to turn around New York’s
The program assigns lowest-performing schools into lowest-performing schools. Receiver authorities
include:
one of two designations - Struggling or Persistently
• Changing the curriculum
Struggling. Struggling schools are schools that have
• Replacing teachers and administrators who
performed at the bottom 5% of the state for at least
are not appropriately certified
three years and Persistently Struggling schools have
• Increasing salaries to attract new talent
been for at least ten years.
• Improving process for hiring, evaluation,
professional development, etc.
Schools in the Receivership program are placed under
• Reallocating budget and funding
the management of either a district Superintendent
• Extending the school day and year
Receiver or an Independent Receiver. A
• Adding pre-K and full kindergarten
Superintendent Receiver is the superintendent of a
• Adding professional development for teachers
school district that has been granted Receiver
and administrators
authorities. An Independent Receiver is an approved
• Converting to a charter school
non-profit entity or individual with a proven track
• Requesting to negotiate the Collective
record in school turnaround efforts.
Bargaining Agreement

Figure 1: 2014-2015 school year average The first cohort of Receivership Schools was identified
achievement measures for schools entering the according to Priority Schools status, which includes
Receivership program only schools that perform in the bottom 5% of the
state. All Priority Schools were placed into
3-8 ELA proficiency: 7%
Superintendent Receivership and were given two
3-8 Math Proficiency: 9% years for Struggling schools and one year for
Persistently Struggling schools to make drastic
High School Graduation Rate: 48%
improvements before they would be turned over to an
Independent Receiver.

!2
DFER NEW YORK

At the end of Superintendent Receivership, the Receivership, the district may apply for the school’s
Commissioner and State Education Department closure or seek permission to replace the school with
determines each school’s next steps based on a newly registered school.
whether or not it made Demonstrable Improvement -
an achievement benchmark based on an index of Dodging Independent Receivership
performance indicators created by the Department. Since the start of the Receivership program in 2015,
no school in the entire state of New York has
If a school has made Demonstrable Improvement, the ever reached Independent Receivership. Some of
this may be attributed to schools’ meeting their
State Education Department decides whether it will
Progress Targets and making Demonstrable
remain in Superintendent Receivership or have its
Improvement, but much of it is because school
Struggling or Persistently Struggling designation
districts and the State Education Department are
removed entirely. If a school has not made
actively avoiding Independent Receivership.
Demonstrable Improvement, the law requires it be
placed under Independent Receivership for a New York City closes a disproportionately large
minimum of three years. Following a recent lawsuit, number of Persistently Struggling schools, in part
schools may also exit Receivership if they exit Priority because of the city’s Renewal Schools program.
Mayor de Blasio and Schools Chancellor Fariña
Schools status, meaning they are no longer in the
declared that if schools in Renewal had not made
bottom 5% of schools in the state.
improvement they would be closed. All of New York
City’s Receivership schools are also in Renewal, so
As a final measure, if a school has not made
the city may close them and claim that they are only
Demonstrable Improvement and has not exited keeping in line with Renewal Schools policy.
Priority Schools status, rather than enter Independent

Figure 1: Schools that have been closed, merged, split, or registered as a new school include the
following:

Monroe Academy for Visual Arts & Design Bennett High School

Northwest College Prep High School Fowler High School

Davis Middle School Delaware Academy
Globe School - Environmental Research Lafayette High School

School of Diplomacy Riverside Institute of Technology

MS 596 Peace Academy East High School
Lincoln School JHS 162 Lola Rodriguez de Tio

PS 64 Pura Belpre Automotive High School

!3
DFER NEW YORK

In accordance with the Receivership law, district Low Expectations
superintendents are granted Receiver authorities in Schools are given Progress Targets as numerical
order to aggressively pursue turnaround efforts. In benchmarks for specific achievement indicators that
reality, granting these authorities to superintendents in they must reach in order to have made Demonstrable
particular could be confounding in schools’ ability to Improvement. These indicators are broken down and
make aggressive interventions. District tiered from Tier 1 to Tier 4.
superintendents and chancellors are subject to
political interests, which greatly suppresses their ability Tier 1 and 2 account for 50% of a school’s
to implement necessary changes at the school level. Demonstrable Improvement Index and are selected by
schools themselves from a pre-approved list provided
At the most fundamental level, district superintendents by the State Education Department. The indicators
and chancellors are not inclined to allow schools to that a school chooses will be used to judge whether
reach Independent Receivership because it reflects or not they have made Demonstrable Improvement
badly on their ability to implement school turnaround and are eligible for removal from Receivership. Tier 3
strategies - one of the most central responsibilities of and 4 indicators account for the other 50% of a
their position. It is far more politically expedient to school’s Demonstrable Improvement Index and are
close a school or claim that it has made Demonstrable selected locally. Tier 3 and Tier 4 indicators vary by
Improvement than it would be to admit that a school district.
had to be surrendered to an outside entity for
successful turnaround.

Figure 2: The Tier 1 and 2 indicators, while inclusive of some strong options, are significantly watered
down by indicators that are either subjective or draw focus away from academic achievement.
Elementary and Middle Tier 1 High School Tier 1

Made Priority School Progress Made Priority School Progress

Percent of Students at or above Level 2 in ELA 4-year High School Graduation Rate

Percent of Students at or above Level 2 in Math 5-year High School Graduation Rate

Mean Student Growth Percentile in ELA Percent of Students Graduating with Regents
Diploma with Advanced Designation

Mean Student Growth Percentile in Math Percent of 10th Graders Passing Math Regents

Percent of Students at or above Level 3 in Science Percent of 11th Graders Passing ELA Regents

Serious Incidents Serious Incidents

While Tier 1 indicators fare well in terms of focus on academic achievement, there are still some glaring issues. Elementary and Middle
indicators allow for selection of “Percent of Students at or above Level 2” in ELA or math exams. However, a student is not considered
proficient in a subject unless they reach a score of level 3 or higher. Schools should be aspiring to raise proficiency, not scores alone.

!4
DFER NEW YORK

Along that same vein, tracking Mean Student Growth Percentile can yield misleading results. Students are given
more detailed scores based on the number of individual questions they answered correctly on state exams.
Tracking growth in this area is certainly important, but a school’s success should be measured based on how
many students attain proficiency, not just how many students correctly answer one or two questions higher than in
the previous year.

Tracking the percent of students who passed Regents exams “Cutoff scores have been
can yield similarly misleading results. In recent years the cutoff for
manipulated to produce politically
passing scores on Regents exams has been lowered, which
made a passing score more easily attained and caused passing desirable results”
Bob Schaeffer
rates to increase sharply. These increases were not necessarily
Public Education Director, FairTest
because the quality of instruction drastically improved, but rather
because expectations were lowered.

The focus of Tier 2 through Tier 4 indicators needs to be adjusted to place academic achievement at the center of
schools’ turnaround efforts. While the factors included are important, they should not hold equal weight to
academic indicators. Taken directly from the State Education Department’s index of Demonstrable Improvement
indicators, some indicators that are subjective or climate-focused are as follows:

Figure : Taken directly from the State Education Department’s index of Demonstrable Improvement
indicators, some indicators that are subjective or climate-focused are as follows:

Implementing Community School Model School Climate Survey

Trust Teacher Practices and Decisions

Teacher Turnover Family and Community Engagement

Teacher Attendance Student Collaboration

Strong Family-Community Ties Collaborative Teachers

Local Measures Approved by Chancellor Supportive Environment

Tier 2 Indicators include:

• Student suspension rate • Teachers teaching out of
certification
• Total cohort with 5 or more
credits • Rigorous instruction

• Post-graduation plans • Student collaboration,
engagement and cognitively
• Effective school leadership rigorous instruction in self-
contained and integrated co-
• Teacher practices & decisions teaching classrooms

!5
DFER NEW YORK

Unambitious Goals
Indicator options aside, the Progress Targets given to schools for those selected indicators require abysmally small
outcome increases. The figure below is the Demonstrable Improvement Index for IS 339 in New York City, which
spells out its Progress Targets for the years between 2015 and 2017. These trends are consistent among all
schools in Receivership.

Figure 4: These are the metrics and goals as spelled out in the Demonstrable Improvement Index
provided by the Department of Education

Note that between 2015 and 2016, all indicators that track a percentage require only a one percent increase in
order to meet the Progress Target and make Demonstrable Improvement. All indicators that represented Average
Proficiency Ratings required only an increase of 0.01. These Progress Targets and expectations are appallingly low
and meeting them does not indicate that a school has made any substantial improvements.

School Description School Goal for Progress Goal for Progress
Baseline 15-16 Target for 16-17 Target for
15-16 16-17

IS 339 Average ELA Proficiency Rating 2.10 2.24 2.11 2.25 2.13

IS 339 School Climate Survey Metric 10 84 11 85 12

IS 339 3-8 Math All Students Level 2 and above 37% 38% 38% 41% 40%

IS 339 3-8 Math All Students MGP 51.0 51.17 52 51.17 52.00

IS 339 Priority School makes yearly progress NA Make Make Make Make
Progress Progress Progress Progress

IS 339 3-8 ELA All Students MGP 50.4 NA NA 50.72 51.38

Figure 5: Assuming that Receivership schools met their goal of one-percent improvement in 3-8
ELA and math proficiency every year, it would take an average of 23 and 28 years, respectively, just
to reach the 2015 state averages.

3-8 ELA Proficiency 3-8 Math Proficiency

40%
2040
30%
2038
20%

10%

0%
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

!6
DFER NEW YORK

Demonstrable Improvement

In order to declare that a school has made The low expectations handed down through Progress
Demonstrable Improvement it has to have reached the Targets and the subjectivity in accountability measures
aforementioned Progress Targets spelled out in the means that schools are not actually required to make
Demonstrable Improvement Index - in theory, at least. significant gains in order to be removed from
The State Education Department and Commissioner Receivership.
decide based on the following whether or not a school
may declare it has made Demonstrable Improvement: Figure 6: Schools that made “Demonstrable
• If a school reaches 67% or more of their Improvement” and the percent of goals they met
Progress Targets, they have made in the 2016-2017 school year
Demonstrable Improvement School Name % Met (2017)
• If a school reaches between 40% and 67% it
is left to the Commissioner to decide whether PS 74 Hamlin Park 51

or not Demonstrable Improvement was made PS 59 Dr Charles Drew Science 55
• If a school reaches less than 40% it has not
DeWitt Clinton High School 45
made Demonstrable Improvement, unless it
can demonstrate that it could have reached East Upper High School 39
67% if not for extenuating or extraordinary
East Lower High School 57
circumstances
School 3 - Nathaniel Rochester 59

The State Education Department has already shown Dr King Elementary School 57
that they would rather grant schools Demonstrable
Frank A Sedita School 30 64
Improvement or closure than proceed to Independent
Receivership, which effectively means that anything D’Youville-Porter Campus 66
over 40% is eligible for Demonstrable Improvement
MS 301 Paul Dunbar 61
designation. In 2017, the Commissioner declared that
every school that reached 40% or higher had made PS 165 Ida Posner 47
Demonstrable Improvement. 62
Flushing High School

In fact, one high school was said to have made Westside Academy at Blodgett 61

Demonstrable Improvement despite only Danforth Middle School 61
reaching 39% of its Progress Targets. The
Lincoln Middle School 64
Commissioner claims that the low score was
“because of special circumstances related to the James Monroe High School 68
school’s partnership with the University of Rochester,”
Hunts Point School 47
making it ineligible for Independent Receivership.

!7
DFER NEW YORK

In looking at growth in 3-8 test scores, the effects of these weak goals and indicators are clearly visible. In terms of
3-8 Math proficiency, there was virtually no difference in achievement outcomes between schools that were
retained as Struggling and schools that were removed from Receivership.

Percent Point Growth 3-8 Math in Struggling Schools
40%
Figure 5: The number of
percentage points each 30%

Receivership school that
20%
retained its Struggling status
made between the years of 10%

2015 and 2017. Each point
0%
represents one school and
the distance above or below -10%

the horizontal axis represents
-20%
the number of percentage
points the school increased or -30%

decreased in 3-8 Math
proficiency. -40%

Percent Point Growth Struggling Schools

Percent Point Growth 3-8 Math in Struggling vs Removed Schools
40% Figure 6: This superimposes
the same data points for
30%
schools that were removed
20% from the Receivership

10%
program against the schools
that retained their Struggling
0%
status. Note that, save for
-10% very few outliers, no
significant difference is
-20%
shown.
-30%

-40%

Percent Point Growth Sturggling Schools Percent Point Growth Removed Schools

On average, schools that retained Struggling status improved by 2%, or roughly 7 more proficient
students. Schools that were removed from the program improved by an average of 3%, which was
also roughly 7 more proficient students. Removal from Receivership had no significant connection to
better outcomes for students.

!8
DFER NEW YORK

High schools present a unique challenge in that data reported may not accurately represent the actual progress
made by the school. There is a clear gap between gains reported by schools in graduation rates and gains in the
number of students that actually graduate from those schools.

Change in Percent Points of Grad Rate at Removed High Figure 7 shows the number of
Schools percentage points by which high schools
20% that were removed from Receivership
changed their graduation rates between
15%
the 2015 and 2016 school years. Each
10%
point represents a single school and the
5%
distance above or below the horizontal
0%
axis represents the number of
-5%
percentage points by which its
-10% graduation rate changed. The results vary
-15% a bit, but a consistently positive trend is
-20% clear. The average change in percentage
Change in % Graduated DI Schools points was a roughly 4% increase.

Figure 8 shows the change in the Change in Number of Students Graduated at Removed High
number of actual students that graduated Schools
from those same schools. While the 80
change in percentage points yielded
60
results that were mostly positive, change
40
in the number of students that graduated
20
yielded results that were mostly negative
or close to zero. The average change in 0

students graduated was -3. -20

-40
High School X405 - Bronx
Change in Graduation Rate: 10% -60
Change in Students Graduated: -57
-80
High School Q435 - Queens
Change in Number of Students Graduated
Change in Graduation Rate: 10%
Change in Students Graduated: -11

Further, high schools that retained their Struggling status after the 2016 school year made average gains in
percentage points of about 6%, while schools that were removed from the program made gains of about 4%. This
means that schools that were deemed eligible for removal from Receivership actually had smaller percentage point
gains than those that were kept in the program. Both schools that retained Struggling status and schools that
were removed from Receivership, on average, saw a decrease in the number of students that graduated of 4
students and 3 students, respectively.

!9
Recommendations

• Require three years minimum for sustainable improvement - Schools must be allowed ample time to
make use of their Receivership authorities in order to implement and pursue aggressive turnaround strategies.
The length of time schools remain in Receivership should be expanded to a minimum of three years.

• Close loopholes that push schools out of the program - The several layers of loopholes and conditions
that allow schools to make so-called Demonstrable Improvement, without making any significant gains in
academic achievement, must be closed. Demonstrable Improvement Indicators need to redirect focus to
academics and place greater emphasis on those indicators to prevent the watering down created by
indicators like “trust” and “supportive environment.”

• Goals must be ambitious and aggressive - Progress Targets must also be appropriately ambitious.
Schools in Receivership are starting from the bottom 5% of all schools in the state of New York. As such,
annual goals of a 1% increase will not drive improvement and progress at a rate that matches the urgency of
these failing schools. Students simply cannot wait 20 years for a school to improve from 5% proficiency to
25% proficiency in a particular subject.

• Take the politics out of Receivership - Receiver authorities must be granted to district superintendents or
Education Department leaders who are not subject to political interests or the interests of lobbying groups that
may hinder their ability to make objective decisions and aggressive interventions. This policy was crafted to
challenge the status quo and give schools the opportunity to be managed by an impartial entity. Granting
Receivership authorities to somebody who is not seeking reelection or appointment is the first step.

• Priority schools as a point of entry, not exit - Priority Schools status should be used for designation of
schools and entrance into Receivership, but cannot be used as a method of removal from the program.
Priority Schools status is defined as the bottom 5 percent of schools in the state, meaning this list is revolving
by definition. A school earning its way into the bottom 6 percent is simply not enough to declare that it no
longer requires significant turnaround efforts.

• Rebrand the program - Receivership also struggles with very harsh public perception. The program is often
seen as punitive and a means for schools to be taken over by outsiders, while it could be seen as an
interesting opportunity. Receivership grants schools an extraordinary level of autonomy and freedom from
bureaucracy. It allows the school, in tandem with its Receiver, to make its own decisions and implement its
own policies quickly and aggressively as it sees fit.

• Support and encourage school leadership - Receivership should be seen as an innovative opportunity for
principals and school leaders to tailor school-level policies to best meet the needs of their students. Districts
should work to build superintendent and principal capacity in order to meet these needs.


!10
End Notes
1. All school performance data is readily available at the New York Stated Education Department website:
http://data.nysed.gov; This includes figures 5 through 9 as well as Appendix data.

2. Goals and accountability information can be found at the Office of Accountability website:
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/de/SchoolReceivership.html; includes figures 2, 3, and 4.

3. Figure 1 lists the schools by name before entering Receivership

!11
Appendix A
Tracking 2015 and 2016 graduation rates and cohorts in Receivership high schools originally
designated as Struggling

2015 2016 Percent- Net
Identification 2015 2016
District School Name Current Status Grad Grad Point Change
Status Grads Grads
Rate Rate Change Grads

ALBANY CITY SD ALBANY HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 55% 339 60% 379 5% 40

BUFFALO CITY BENNETT HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 45% 82 46% 54 1% -28
SD

BUFFALO CITY EAST HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 42% 53 34% 33 -8% -20
SD

BUFFALO CITY INTER PREP SCH-GROVER 54% 27 66% 57 12% 30
Struggling Struggling
SD CLEVELAND #187

BUFFALO CITY LAFAYETTE HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 32% 42 34% 46 2% 4
SD

BUFFALO CITY MCKINLEY VOC HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Removed 73% 176 81% 173 8% -3
SD

BUFFALO CITY RIVERSIDE INSTITUTE OF 61% 160 68% 161 7% 1
Struggling Struggling
SD TECHNOLOGY

NYC DIST #1 - HENRY STREET SCHOOL (ORCHARD 63% 46 52% 23 -11% -23
Struggling Removed
MANHATTAN COLLEGIATE)

NYC DIST #1 - MARTA VALLE HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Removed 44% 45 58% 43 14% -2
MANHATTAN

NYC DIST #3 - FREDERICK DOUGLASS ACADEMY II Struggling Removed 51% 35 53% 31 2% -4
MANHATTAN

NYC DIST #7 - ALFRED E SMITH CAREER-TECH HIGH 63% 34 68% 49 5% 15
Struggling Removed
BRONX SCH

NYC DIST #7 - FOREIGN LANG ACAD OF GLOBAL 39% 17 56% 19 17% 2
Struggling Removed
BRONX STUDIES

NYC DIST #7 - NEW EXPLORERS HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Removed 54% 67 46% 42 -8% -25
BRONX

NYC DIST #8 - BANANA KELLY HIGH SCHOOL 42% 45 45% 41 3% -4
Struggling Struggling
BRONX (LONGWOOD PREP)

NYC DIST #8 - HERBERT H LEHMAN HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 35% 214 45% 157 10% -57
BRONX

NYC DIST #9 - BRONX HIGH SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Struggling Removed 38% 34 47% 30 9% -4
BRONX

NYC DIST #9 - DREAMYARD PREPARATORY SCHOOL Struggling Removed 59% 51 57% 39 -2% -12
BRONX

NYC DIST #10 - DEWITT CLINTON HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 41% 327 43% 279 2% -48
BRONX

NYC DIST #10 - FORDHAM LEADERSHIP-BUS/TECH Struggling Struggling 41% 48 59% 66 18% 18
BRONX

NYC DIST #11 - BRONX HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE 50% 59 52% 64 2% 5
Struggling Removed
BRONX VISUAL ART

NYC DIST #11 - BRONXWOOD PREP ACADEMY (THE) Struggling Removed 62% 73 63% 64 1% -9
BRONX

NYC DIST #12 - MONROE ACAD FOR VISUAL ARTS & Struggling CLOSED - - - - - -
BRONX DESIGN

!12
2015 2016 Percent- Net
Identification 2015 2016
District School Name Current Status Grad Grad Point Change
Status Grads Grads
Rate Rate Change Grads

NYC DIST #14 - FOUNDATIONS ACADEMY Struggling Removed 33% 12 50% 13 17% 1
BROOKLYN

NYC DIST #14 - JUAN MOREL CAMPOS SECONDARY Struggling Struggling 42% 36 45% 51 3% 15
BROOKLYN SCHOOL

NYC DIST #16 - BOYS AND GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 50% 90 49% 65 -1% -25
BROOKLYN

NYC DIST #17 - W E B DUBOIS ACADEMIC HIGH Struggling Removed 8% 4 10% 4 2% 0
BROOKLYN SCHOOL

NYC DIST #19 - CYPRESS HILLS COLLEGIATE PREP Struggling Struggling 55% 57 73% 60 18% 3
BROOKLYN SCHOOL

NYC DIST #19 - FDNY HIGH SCHOOL-FIRE & LIFE Struggling Removed 69% 44 79% 42 10% -2
BROOKLYN SAFETY

NYC DIST #23 - ASPIRATIONS DIPLOMA PLUS HIGH Struggling Removed 15% 15 12% 13 -3% -2
BROOKLYN SCHOOL

NYC DIST #24 - GROVER CLEVELAND HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Removed 61% 270 59% 230 -2% -40
QUEENS

NYC DIST #25 - FLUSHING HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 24% 39 29% 36 5% -3
QUEENS

NYC DIST #26 - MARTIN VAN BUREN HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 53% 270 63% 259 10% -11
QUEENS

NYC DIST #27 - AUGUST MARTIN HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 56% 389 56% 302 0% -79
QUEENS

NYC DIST #27 - JOHN ADAMS HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Removed 59% 462 62% 448 3% -14
QUEENS

NYC DIST #27 - RICHMOND HILL HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Removed 52% 294 59% 333 7% 39
QUEENS

NYC DIST #32 - BUSHWICK LEADERS HS-ACAD Struggling Removed 61% 58 74% 52 13% -6
BROOKLYN EXCELL

POUGHKEEPSIE POUGHKEEPSIE HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Removed 60% 181 61% 168 1% -13
CITY SD

ROCHESTER NORTHEAST COLLEGE PREP HIGH Struggling Struggling 36% 54 54% 102 18% 48
CITY SD SCHOOL

ROCHESTER NORTHWEST COLLEGE PREP HIGH Struggling CLOSED - - - - - -
CITY SD SCHOOL

SYRACUSE CITY FOWLER HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 34% 100 44% 127 10% 27
SD

SYRACUSE CITY HENNINGER HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Struggling 55% 219 61% 239 6% 20
SD

SYRACUSE CITY NOTTINGHAM HIGH SCHOOL Struggling Removed 62% 170 66% 208 4% 38
SD

Average of all
Struggling High 5.25% -3.2
Schools

*Data provided by NYSED

**2017 graduation data not released by NYSED at the time of publication

!13
Appendix B
Tracking 2015-2017 3-8 ELA and math proficiency rates in Receivership elementary and middle schools
originally designated as Struggling
Percent- Net Percent- Net
Current 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 Point Student Point Student
School Name Status ELA ELA ELA Math Math Math Change Change Change Change
ELA ELA Math Math

P J SCHUYLER ACHIEVEMENT 5% 9% 10% 7% 13% 16% 5% 8 9% 15
Struggling
ACADEMY

WILLIAM B TECLER ARTS IN Removed 10% 18% 15% 14% 17% 15% 5% 11 1% 7
EDUCATION

BILINGUAL CENTER Removed 8% 9% 8% 13% 9% 10% 0% 1 -3% -8

BUILD ACADEMY Struggling 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% -1% -3 0% 0

DR LYDIA T WRIGHT SCH OF Struggling 4% 10% 12% 5% 8% 7% 8% 28 2% 9
EXCELLENCE

D'YOUVILLE-PORTER CAMPUS Struggling 6% 10% 9% 6% 6% 7% 3% 9 1% 4

FRANK A SEDITA SCHOOL #30 Struggling 7% 8% 7% 7% 4% 5% 0% 3 -3% -10

HARRIET ROSS TUBMAN Removed 2% 6% 7% 6% 5% 6% 5% 12 0% -1
ACADEMY

HARVEY AUSTIN SCHOOL #97 Struggling 3% 5% 6% 6% 7% 8% 3% 11 2% 9

HERMAN BADILLO COMMUNITY 2% 4% 4% 2% 3% 7% 2% 8 5% 22
Struggling
SCHOOL

HIGHGATE HEIGHTS Removed 6% 11% 12% 5% 9% 14% 6% 13 9% 15

PS 17 Removed 11% 19% 13% 15% 20% 19% 2% 4 4% 7

PS 59 DR CHARLES DREW SCI 5% 7% 7% 7% 5% 7% 2% 10 0% 2
Struggling
MAGNET

PS 66 NORTH PARK ACADEMY Removed 5% 7% 7% 8% 6% 9% 2% 4 1% 6

PS 74 HAMLIN PARK Struggling 3% 7% 11% 2% 4% 9% 8% 18 7% 16
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

WATERFRONT SCHOOL Removed 9% 14% 17% 16% 17% 19% 5% 33 3% 13

RALPH REED SCHOOL Removed 8% 13% 18% 12% 12% 9% 10% 47 -3% -19

ALVERTA B GRAY SCHULTZ Struggling 6% 7% 10% 4% 4% 6% 3% 50 2% 11
MIDDLE SCH

TEMPLE HILL SCHOOL Removed 18% 27% 38% 24% 26% 29% 20% 128 5% 27

PS 15 ROBERTO CLEMENTE Removed 5% 20% 36% 12% 21% 45% 31% 21 33% 24

PS 123 MAHALIA JACKSON Removed 8% 17% 21% 6% 5% 7% 13% 37 1% 5

YOUNG LEADERS ELEMENTARY 3% 12% 9% 7% 9% 9% 6% 6 2% 3
Removed
SCHOOL

!14
Percent- Net Percent- Net
Current 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 Point Student Point Student
School Name Status ELA ELA ELA Math Math Math Change Change Change Change
ELA ELA Math Math
BRONX MATHEMATICS PREP SCH Struggling 8% 13% 20% 3% 5% 8% 12% 24 5% 11
(THE)

HUNTS POINT SCHOOL (THE) Struggling 7% 6% 10% 6% 4% 2% 3% 5 -4% -14

MS 301 PAUL L DUNBAR Struggling 3% 5% 8% 3% 5% 5% 5% 12 2% 7

IS 219 NEW VENTURE SCHOOL Struggling 1% 10% 10% 1% 3% 3% 9% 23 2% 7

IS 313 SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP
DEV Removed 6% 10% 13% 5% 9% 8% 7% 17 3% 6

IS 339 Struggling 5% 10% 11% 4% 6% 9% 6% 20 5% 20

NEW MILLENNIUM BUSINESS Struggling 6% 11% 12% 4% 8% 8% 6% 13 4% 9
ACAD MS

ANGELO PATRI MIDDLE SCHOOL Removed 8% 14% 15% 5% 8% 6% 7% 31 1% 7
(THE)

PS 85 GREAT EXPECTATIONS Struggling 5% 12% 15% 8% 8% 12% 7% 39 4% 17

FANNIE LOU HAMER MIDDLE Removed 11% 16% 20% 8% 7% 4% 9% 22 -4% -11
SCHOOL

PS 92 Struggling 5% 9% 11% 5% 4% 12% 6% 10 7% 13

SCHOOL OF PERFORMING ARTS Struggling 9% 9% 18% 4% 7% 10% 9% 17 6% 10

MS 584 Removed 6% 12% 7% 6% 8% 0% 1% -1 -6% -5

EAST FLATBUSH COMM Removed 8% 16% 21% 11% 11% 9% 13% 12 -2% -8
RESEARCH SCHOOL

PS 165 IDA POSNER Struggling 10% 13% 14% 8% 8% 9% 4% 5 1% -1

PS 298 DR BETTY SHABAZZ Struggling 7% 13% 13% 7% 7% 15% 6% 3 8% 4

MS 53 BRIAN PICCOLO Removed 7% 14% 16% 6% 5% 4% 9% 24 -2% -5

JHS 8 RICHARD S GROSSLEY Removed 12% 12% 22% 5% 8% 18% 10% 13 13% 37

PS 111 JACOB BLACKWELL Struggling 8% 13% 16% 6% 9% 10% 8% 8 4% 2

JHS 291 ROLAND HAYES Removed 9% 10% 14% 9% 8% 4% 5% 3 -3% -23

POUGHKEEPSIE MIDDLE SCHOOL Struggling 9% 10% 16% 6% 3% 6% 7% 54 0% 6

SCHOOL 17-ENRICO FERMI Struggling 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2% 6 1% 1

SCHOOL 22-LINCOLN SCHOOL Removed 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% -1% 0 -1% -2

SCHOOL 34-DR LOUIS A CERULLI Removed 5% 6% 9% 8% 8% 10% 4% 11 2% 6

!15
Percent- Net Percent- Net
Current 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 Point Student Point Student
School Name Status ELA ELA ELA Math Math Math Change Change Change Change
ELA ELA Math Math
SCHOOL 3-NATHANIEL Struggling 2% 4% 5% 1% 4% 6% 3% 14 5% 19
ROCHESTER

SCHOOL 41-KODAK PARK Struggling 3% 4% 4% 6% 5% 6% 1% 2 0% 1

SCHOOL 44-LINCOLN PARK Removed 6% 12% 3% 8% 16% 12% -3% -4 4% 5

SCHOOL 45-MARY MCLEOD Struggling 3% 6% 9% 8% 6% 7% 6% 23 -1% 0
BETHUNE

SCHOOL 8-ROBERTO CLEMENTE Struggling 2% 5% 4% 6% 5% 2% 2% 4 -4% -14

ROOSEVELT MIDDLE SCHOOL Removed 7% 15% 15% 4% 6% 6% 8% 21 2% 0

HAMILTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Removed 51% 60% 49% 55% 63% 62% -2% 12 7% 22

BELLEVUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Removed 4% 10% 9% 11% 9% 8% 7% 10 -3% -5

DANFORTH MIDDLE SCHOOL Struggling 1% 4% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 4 -1% -1

DELAWARE ACADEMY Struggling 37% 37% 43% 49% 37% 53% 6% 5 4% 9

DR KING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Struggling 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 3% 1% 1 -4% -2

FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Removed 8% 11% 16% 11% 13% 19% 8% 22 8% 25

FRAZER K-8 SCHOOL Struggling 6% 6% 11% 8% 7% 7% 5% 27 -1% -3

HUGHES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Removed 5% 6% 1% 8% 3% 0% -4% -6 -8% -11

HURLBUT W SMITH K-8 SCHOOL Removed 9% 17% 21% 12% 12% 16% 12% 66 4% 20

DR WEEKS ELEMENTARY Struggling 2% 7% 11% 6% 10% 10% 9% 31 4% 19
SCHOOL

LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL Struggling 4% 7% 5% 3% 2% 2% 1% 5 -1% 1

PORTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Removed 5% 11% 5% 8% 11% 5% 0% 1 -3% -8

SEYMOUR DUAL LANGUAGE Removed 5% 8% 15% 6% 8% 7% 10% 25 1% 6
ACADEMY

VAN DUYN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Removed 3% 8% 15% 6% 8% 16% 12% 21 10% 19

WESTSIDE ACADEMY AT 1% 4% 3% 0% 0% 1% 2% 9 1% 4
Struggling
BLODGETT

PS 2 Struggling 7% 10% 15% 7% 9% 15% 8% 12 8% 12

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ELEM Removed 13% 15% 21% 18% 22% 29% 8% 16 11% 24
SCH

MILTON L OLIVE MIDDLE SCHOOL Struggling 4% 7% 12% 2% 4% 7% 8% 62 5% 41

!16
Percent- Net Percent- Net
Current 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 Point Student Point Student
School Name Status ELA ELA ELA Math Math Math Change Change Change Change
ELA ELA Math Math

CROSS HILL ACADEMY Struggling 11% 19% 22% 10% 15% 16% 11% 37 6% 24

ENRICO FERMI SCHOOL-PERF
ARTS Removed 11% 15% 19% 17% 11% 8% 8% 54 1% 18

MUSEUM SCHOOL 25 Struggling 8% 6% 12% 12% 9% 12% 4% 2 0% -4

ROBERT C DODSON SCHOOL Removed 13% 17% 18% 16% 14% 18% 5% 29 2% 27

SCHOLASTIC ACAD FOR ACAD
EXCELLENCE Removed 12% 14% 18% 9% 11% 16% 6% 19 7% 25

SCHOOL 13 Removed 7% 16% 18% 14% 17% 20% 11% 43 6% 24

*Does not include Persistently Struggling, closed, or merged schools

**Data provided by NYSED

!17