Newly Identified Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) and Schools Removed from Registration Review

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

On Tuesday, January 8, I will announce the placement of 20 schools under registration review (SURR) as well as the removal of 20 schools from registration review. I will also announce that the Department has reached an agreement with the New York City Board of Education to close two schools that are now under registration review.

The actions I am taking are based on the performance of schools on the Grades 4 and 8 English language arts and mathematics assessments, the percent of the 1997 high school cohort meeting graduation assessment requirements in English language arts and mathematics, and the annual dropout rate. As part of our strategy to raise the floor for acceptable performance, the standards applied this year for consideration as a school under registration review were more rigorous than those from last year.

Twelve of the schools being added to the SURR list are in New York City, compared to 18 New York City schools named last year. Eight upstate schools were identified for registration review this year, the same number as last year. Four of the 12 New York City schools identified are former SURR schools that had been removed from registration review. In three out of the four cases, these schools had been removed from SURR at least five years ago, when the standards for removal were lower. Consistent with the overall results from the State assessments, 14 of the 20 schools I identified this year are designated based on poor results on the Grade 8 assessments. Four of the schools identified are in Buffalo, which will make a total of 10 SURR schools in that district. I have directed staff from the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education and the District Superintendent of Erie I BOCES to work with that district to develop a comprehensive strategy for supporting these schools, similar to the one that has been put in place in New York City.

In addition to the actions I have taken, staff continue to review the performance of two high schools in Rochester that have been the subject of an audit of that district’s annual dropout data. I will make a determination about the status of these schools once the audit results become final.

The number of New York City schools removed from registration review this year, 19, is two more than the number removed last year. Pleasant Valley Elementary School in Schenectady was the only upstate school this year that met the criteria for removal from registration review.

The New York City Board of Education and SED staff have agreed that MS 52 and MS 120 in Community School District 8 are performing at a level that is not acceptable. As a result, these schools will be closed. The Board of Education will provide me with a plan for phasing out these schools. These schools will join the five New York City SURR schools that began the year operating under approved closure plans.

Attached is the press release that will be made available on January 8 as well as a list of the 100 current SURR schools, 77 of which are in New York City and 23 in the rest of the State; a list of the newly identified SURR schools; and a list of the schools that are being removed from the SURR list.

Now the hard work of reform begins. District Superintendents are preparing registration review teams that will begin to visit these schools later this month. SED staff members have been assigned to work with these schools to develop improvement plans and to access funding and professional development opportunities. Senior Department managers will be working to support the gap closing efforts under way in these districts.

The 20 schools that I removed from registration review bring to 143 the number of SURR schools that have been removed from review because of academic improvement or have been closed. For the first time since the process began in 1989, there are more former SURR schools in operation in our State than there are schools under registration review. Thousands of students are benefiting from the improvements that have occurred in the educational program at these schools. This represents a significant accomplishment and a reason for us to stay the course in insisting that low-performing schools can and must improve.

State Education Commissioner Richard Mills today placed 20 schools on the State’s registration review list. He also removed 20 schools from registration review and announced that two more schools will be closed by the New York City Board of Education.

These actions bring the total number of Schools Under Registration Review (SURR Schools) to 100 statewide, 77 of them in New York City, 10 in Buffalo, 3 in Rochester, 3 in Syracuse, 3 in Yonkers, 2 in Wyandanch, 1 in Newburgh and 1 in Roosevelt.

Fourteen of the schools are being placed on the SURR list because of performance on the middle school State tests in English or math, indicating the need for improvement in middle school instruction.

Of the schools placed under registration review so far this school year, 12 are in New York City and 8 are upstate. Nineteen of the schools removed are in New York City and one is in Schenectady.

The two New York City schools that are being closed are IS 52 and IS 120 in Community School District 8.

"As with last year, most of the schools being placed on the SURR list are middle schools. This shows again that we have a tremendous amount of work to raise the achievement of children in the middle grades," State Education Commissioner Richard Mills said.

"This marks the beginning of the improvement process for the new SURR schools," Commissioner Mills said. "Later this month, teams of experts will visit the schools identified today and provide recommendations for improvement. The State Education Department will work with staff from the local school districts to help these schools develop improvement plans, get additional resources, and create more opportunities for professional development. Ultimately, we will evaluate results and determine whether to remove these schools from review or seek their closure."

Commissioner Mills noted that the registration review process has generally been successful in improving or, where necessary, closing and reorganizing schools. A total of 116 schools have been removed from the SURR list because of improvement, and 27 SURR schools have been closed. "I believe that, as in the past, the vast majority of these newly identified schools will improve student achievement so they too can be removed from the SURR list," Commissioner Mills said.

Schools are placed on the SURR list if they are furthest from State standards in English or math or have a high dropout rate. The School Accountability Performance Index is used to assess performance of elementary and middle schools. It evaluates a school both in terms of students demonstrating some of the learning standards (Level 2) and students demonstrating all of the learning standards (Levels 3 and 4) in English and math.

The Performance Index is calculated by adding the percentage of students at Level 2 and above and the percentage at Level 3 and above on English and math. A school in which all students perform at or above Level 3 will have a Performance Index of 200.

The level of achievement that schools are required to demonstrate to avoid possible consideration for registration review was more rigorous than last year. In grade 4 and 8 English and grade 4 math, the Commissioner raised the cutpoint from a score of 75 on the School Accountability Index to a score of 78. He also raised the cutpoint from 40 to 45 on grade 8 math.

At the high school level, schools are evaluated by using the percentage of a cohort of students meeting State testing requirements in English and math. The cutpoint was raised from 50 percent of the 1996 cohort meeting the graduation assessment requirements in English and math to 55 percent of the 1997 cohort meeting these standards.

School	District	Criteria	Farthest from Standard Cutpoint	Performance 2000-2001	Number tested	English Language Learners (ELL)	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	ELL Making Gains
PS 38	Buffalo	Math 8	45	33	93	NA	68.8	29.0	2.2	0	NA
PS 53	Buffalo	Math 8	45	32	38	NA	71.1	26.3	2.6	0	NA
Burgard High School	Buffalo	Math	55	34	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Kensington High School	Buffalo	Math Dropout	55 9	44 10	NA NA	NA NA	NA NA	NA NA	NA NA	NA NA	NA NA
Broadway School	Newburgh	ELA 4	78	66	49	5	42.9	46.9	8.2	2.0	40.0
Frederick Douglas	Rochester	Math 8	45	41	326	NA	67.5	23.6	8.0	0.9	0
Hughes Magnet	Syracuse	Math 4 Math 8	78 45	75 41	76 66	NA NA	40.8 65.2	43.4 28.8	10.5 6.1	5.3 0.0	NA NA
Milton O. Olive Middle School	Wyandanch	Math 8 ELA 8	45 78	26 60	122 116	NA 0	78.7 46.6	17.2 47.4	4.1 6.0	0 0	NA 0
JHS 370	CSD 1	ELA 8	78	58	61	0	45.9	50.3	3.3	0	0
IS 509	CSD 1	ELA 8	78	69	113	10	40.7	48.7	8.0	2.7	50.0
MS 258	CSD 3	ELA 8	78	73	63	0	30.2	66.7	3.2	0	0
PS 92	CSD 5	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	59 61	102 101	NA 6	49.0 43.6	43.1 49.5	7.8 6.9	0 0	NA 16.7
PS 4	CSD 9	ELA 4 Math 8	78 45	77 33	97 73	2 NA	36.1 69.9	50.5 27.4	12.4 2.7	1.0 0.0	50.0 NA
JHS 117	CSD 9	ELA 8	78	67	258	24	45.3	41.9	12.8	0.0	45.8
IS 98	CSD 12	Math 8	45	41	178	NA	65.2	28.7	4.5	1.7	NA
JHS 258	CSD 13	Math 8 ELA 8	45 78	27 73	268 259	NA 5	73.9 36.3	24.6 55.2	1.1 8.5	0.4 0	NA 80
MS 88	CSD 15	Math 8 ELA 8	45 78	32 76	238 240	NA 9	71.8 36.2	24.8 51.3	3.4 10.8	0.0 1.7	NA 55.6
PS 45	CSD 27	Math 4	78	55	67	NA	56.7	31.3	10.4	1.5	NA
IS 192	CSD 29	Math 8	45	29	411	NA	75.2	20.4	3.4	1.0	NA
George Wingate	Brooklyn	Math	55	50	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Grade 4 and 8 ELA results and targets are based upon the School Accountability Performance Index for 2000-2001. High School ELA and Math results are based upon the percent of the 1997 annual cohort meeting graduation assessment requirements as of June 2001. Dropout is based the annual dropout rate for the 1999-2000 school year.

TO:	The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents
FROM:	Richard P. Mills
COMMITTEE:	Full Board
TITLE OF ITEM:	Newly Identified Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) and Schools Removed from Registration Review
DATE OF SUBMISSION:	January 7, 2002
PROPOSED HANDLING:	Discussion
RATIONALE FOR ITEM:	Monitoring of Regents Policy
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goals 1 and 2
AUTHORIZATION(S):	Richard P. Mills
AUTHORIZATION(S):

District ` (Former)	School	Year Identified*	SED Status – Group
01	P.S. 97	1996	Third Year Redesign - Group 4
01	J.H.S. 370	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
01	I.S. 509	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
03	I.S. 248	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
03	M.S. 258	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
04	P.S. 57	1999	Corrective Year – Group 7
85 (05)	P.S. 30	1998	First Year Redesign - Group 6
85 (05)	P.S. 129	1997	Second Year Redesign - Group 5
05	P.S. 92	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
05	I.S. 195	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
05	P.S. 197	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
05	J.H.S. 275	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
85 (07)	P.S. 49	1997	Second Year Redesign – Group 5
07	I.S. 139	1996	Phasing Out – Group 4 (Closing 6/2002)
85 (07)	I.S. 183	2000	Phasing Out – Group 8 (Closing 6/2003)
07	I.S. 184	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
08 (85)	I.S. 52	1994	Phasing Out – Group 3 (Closing 6/2002)
08	P.S. 60	1996	Third Year Redesign – Group 4
08	I.S. 120	1996	Phasing Out - Group 4 (Closing 6/2003)
08	P.S. 140	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
09	P.S. 4	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
09	P.S. 55	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
85 (09)	P.S. 64	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
85 (09)	J.H.S. 82	1994	Phasing Out –Group 3a (Closing 6/2002)
09	J.H.S. 117	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
85 (09)	I.S. 229	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
10	M.S. 143	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
10	M.S. 315	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
10	P.S. 306	1996	Third Year Redesign – Group 4
12	P.S. 6	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
85 (12)	P.S. 57	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
85 (12)	P.S. 66	1996	Third Year Redesign – Group 4
12	C.S. 67	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
12	I.S. 98	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
85 (12)	I.S. 158	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
85 (12)	P.S. 198	1998	First Year Redesign - Group 6
85 (12)	P.S. 212	1998	First Year Redesign - Group 6
13	J.H.S. 258	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
13	P.S. 270	1998	Corrective Action - Group 6a
14	P.S. 23	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
14	I.S. 33	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
14	I.S. 49	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
15	M.S. 88	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
15	M.S. 378 (formerly M.S. 822 & M.S. 824)	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
85 (16)	P.S. 25	1998	First Year Redesign - Group 6
85 (16)	P.S. 28	1998	First Year Redesign - Group 6
16 (85)	P.S./I.S. 35	1997	Second Year Redesign - Group 5
85 (16)	P.S. 309	1998	First Year Redesign - Group 6
85 (17)	I.S. 246	1997	Second Year Redesign - Group 5
85 (17)	I.S. 320	1994	Phasing Out – Group 3 (Closing 6/2002)
17	I.S. 390	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
85 (17)	M.S. 391	1997	Second Year Redesign - Group 5
18	I.S. 252	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
19	P.S. 13	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
19	P.S. 190	1996	Third Year Redesign – Group 4
19	P.S. 224	1995	Fourth Year Redesign - Group 3
19	I.S. 292	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
19	I.S. 302	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
23	I.S. 55	1997	Second Year Redesign – Group 5
23	J.H.S. 275	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
27	P.S. 43	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
27	P.S. 45	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
27	J.H.S. 198	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
85 (28)	P.S. 40	1998	First Year Redesign - Group 6
29	I.S. 192	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
31	P.S. 31	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
85 (78)	High School for Legal Studies (Formerly Eastern District H.S.)	1989	Sixth Year Redesign – Group 1
78	Automotive H.S.	1997	Second Year Redesign – Group 5
85 (78)	Wadleigh H.S.	1997	Corrective Action - Group 5a
78	Concord H.S.	1998	Corrective Action - Group 6a
78	John Jay H.S.	1998	Phasing Out - Group 6a (Closing 6/2004)
78	Alfred E. Smith H.S.	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
78	Adlai Stevenson H.S.	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
78	Brandeis H.S.	2000	Corrective Action - Group 8
85 (78)	Theodore Roosevelt H.S.	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
85 (78)	William Taft H.S.	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
78	George Wingate	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9

School	District	Year of Initial Identification	Standard	Target	2000-2001 Performance	Number Tested	English Language Learner (ELL)	% Level 1	% Level 2	% Level 3	% Level 4	% ELL Making Gains
180	85 (3)	1997	Math 4 ELA 4	98 98	118 103	45 46	NA 2	20 21.7	42.2 50.0	33.3 28.3	4.4 0.0	NA 0
96*	4 (85)	1998	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	85 91	81 83	NA 1	33.3 27.7	48.1 54.2	17.3 16.9	1.2 1.2	NA 100
161	85 (5)	1994	Math 4 ELA 4	98 98	146 111	110 91	NA 31	12.7 17.6	28.2 53.8	49.1 20.9	10.0 7.7	NA 80.6
32	10	1999	ELA 4	103	116	150	17	16.0	50.0	25.3	8.7	64.7
59*	85 (10)	1998	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	92 94	150 148	NA 4	32.7 28.4	42.7 48.6	22.0 23.0	2.7 0.0	NA 50.0
85*	85 (10)	1998	Math 4 ELA 4	78 92	108 98	185 187	NA 9	22.2 29.4	47.6 42.2	27.0 26.2	3.2 2.1	NA 44.4
195*	85 (12)	1994	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	117 97	112 107	NA 8	24.1 32.7	34.8 38.3	34.8 24.3	6.3 4.7	NA 75.0
214	85 (12)	1997	Math 4 ELA 4	98 98	102 102	99 100	NA 0	25.3 27.0	47.5 44.0	22.2 25.0	5.1 4.0	NA 0
305*	13	1997	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	120 114	89 90	NA 0	16.9 16.7	46.1 52.2	23.6 24.4	13.5 6.7	NA 0
307*	13	1998	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	110 116	63 63	NA 1	15.9 17.5	58.7 47.6	20.6 30.2	4.8 4.8	NA 0
136*	85 (15)	1994	Math 8 ELA 8	45 78	53 84	134 117	NA 22	58.2 29.1	30.6 52.1	10.4 17.9	0.7 0.9	NA 36.4
191*	17	1995	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	130 95	63 66	NA 1	22.2 31.8	25.4 42.4	41.3 24.2	11.1 1.5	NA 100
72*	19	1998	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	110 100	139 133	NA 5	27.3 25.6	35.3 48.9	31.7 23.3	5.8 2.3	NA 80.0
149*	19	1998	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	96 91	127 128	NA 5	27.6 30.5	48.8 48.4	22.8 18.8	0.8 2.3	NA 80.0
158*	19	1998	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	103 100	78 80	NA 3	30.8 27.5	35.9 45.0	28.2 26.3	5.1 1.3	NA 66.7
73	23	1996	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	136 113	59 63	NA 1	13.6 23.8	37.3 38.1	37.3 33.3	11.9 4.8	NA 0
105*	27 (85)	1995	Math 4 ELA 4	78 78	116 103	94 99	NA 2	22.3 25.3	39.4 47.5	35.1 26.3	3.2 1.0	NA 100
291*	32	1994	Math 8 ELA 8	45 78	53 86	267 280	NA 20	53.2 28.6	40.4 56.1	6.4 15.4	0.0 0.0	NA 65.0
Enterprise, Business, and Technology		1989	Math ELA Dropout	75 75 9	83 79 7	NA NA NA	NA NA NA	NA NA NA	NA NA NA	NA NA NA	NA NA NA	NA NA NA
Pleasant Valley	Schenectady	1999	ELA 4	111	125	51	0	13.7	47.1	37.3	2.0	0

District	School	Year Identified	Status (Group)
Buffalo	P.S. 4	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
Buffalo	P.S. 11	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
Buffalo	P.S. 38	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
Buffalo	P.S. 44	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
Buffalo	P.S. 53	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
Buffalo	P.S. 69	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
Buffalo	P.S. 71	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
Buffalo	P.S. 74	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
Buffalo	Burgard HS	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
Buffalo	Kensington HS	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
Newburgh	Broadway School	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
Rochester	Dr. Freddie Thomas Learning Center	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
Rochester	Frederick Douglas	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
Rochester	Alternative Education Center at James Lofton	1998	Corrective Action –Group 6a
Roosevelt	Roosevelt Junior-Senior H.S.	1990	Under Jurisdiction of Special Legislative Act
Syracuse	Blodgett E.S.	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
Syracuse	James A. Shea M.S.	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
Syracuse	Hughes Magnet	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
Wyandanch	Wyandanch Memorial H.S.	2000	Corrective Action – Group 8
Wyandanch	Milton O. Olive MS	2001	Corrective Action – Group 9
Yonkers	Mark Twain M.S.	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
Yonkers	Ralph Waldo Emerson M.S.	1999	Corrective Action – Group 7
Yonkers	Lincoln H.S.	1998	Corrective Action – Group 6a

Richard P. Mills