Questions and Answers

“Higher Performing/Gap Closing” and “Rapidly Improving” Schools

Q1. What is a “Higher Performing/Gap Closing” school or district?

A. Schools and districts that met all applicable State standards in English language arts and mathematics in 2004-2005 and that made Adequate Yearly Progress in both 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 on all applicable English language arts, mathematics, science and graduation rate criteria were eligible to be recognized. In addition, the school or district must have been accountable for 30 continuously enrolled students in at least two racial ethnic groups or at least one racial ethnic group and one of the following groups of students: low-income students, students with disabilities, or limited English proficient students.

Q2. What is a “Rapidly Improving” school or district?

A. Schools and districts that were below one or more State standards but improved their performance during the past three years on each applicable criterion and made Adequate Yearly Progress in 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 on all applicable English language arts, mathematics, science and/or graduation rate criteria were eligible to be recognized. In addition, the school or district must have been accountable for 30 continuously enrolled students in at least two racial ethnic groups or at least one racial ethnic group and one of the following groups of students: low-income students, students with disabilities, or limited English proficient students.

Q3. What was the State standard in 2004-2005?

A. The State standard was for the “all student” group to achieve a Performance Index of 150 on the Grade 4, 8, and/or high school ELA and math criteria. To achieve a PI of 150, an elementary or middle school must have virtually all of its students at or above Level 2 and at least half achieving at or above Level 3. At the high school level, virtually all of the students must have passed the Regents with a score of at 55 and the majority must have passed with a 65 within four years of entry into grade nine.

Q3. How many schools and districts were eligible for recognition as “higher performing/gap closing” and how many were recognized?

Statewide, 2,129 public and charter schools, or 47 percent of schools, and 432 districts, or 59 percent of districts, met this eligibility requirement. Beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, when grade 3-8 testing commences, the number of eligible schools and districts will increase significantly as more schools and districts will be held accountable for more subgroups of students.

A total of 33 percent of eligible schools and 18 percent of eligible districts were recognized. A total of 515 elementary schools, 137 middle schools, 98 high schools, 19 elementary-middle schools, and 21 middle-high schools and 1 elementary-middle-high school were recognized.

New York City had the largest number of recognized schools with 290. In addition, 32 schools were recognized in the other large city school districts, 98 in high need small urban-suburban districts, 63 in high need rural districts, 201 in average need districts, and 107 in low need districts. Among districts, one high need small urban-suburban, five high need rural districts, 35 average need districts, and 38 low need districts received recognition.

The schools identified were most frequently cited for making AYP with low-income students followed by White, Hispanic, students with disabilities, Black, Asian, limited English proficient, and Native American students. Districts were most frequently cited for making AYP with White students followed by students with disabilities, low-income, Asian, Black, Hispanic, and limited English-proficient students

Q4. Why were some schools and districts not eligible for recognition?

If a school or district was held accountable for only a small number of students, served a homogenous population, or did not serve grades that participate in State assessments, the school or district would not be eligible for recognition. To be eligible a school or district must have had at least 30 continuously enrolled students in two or more racial/ethnic groups or in the low-income, students with disabilities or limited English proficient student accountability groups. Some examples of schools that were not eligible for consideration, include:

· The Woodhull School in the Fire Island School District tested only seven students in Grade 4 ELA and only eight students in math in 2005-2006. Since the school tested fewer than 30 continuously enrolled students, it is ineligible for recognition.

· The Mount Vernon Pre-K Program serves only pre-kindergarten students. It is not eligible for recognition.

· The Bronx Guild High School did not have a cohort in 2005-2006 for which graduation rate could be determined. It has not yet graduated a cohort of students and is not eligible for recognition.

· The Robert Seaman Elementary School in Jericho had 100% of students achieve proficiency in Grade 4 ELA and math in 2005-2006. However, since the school was held accountable for only one racial/ethnic group and was not held accountable for low-income, special education, or limited English proficient students, the school was not eligible for recognition.

Q5. Are the schools on this list the highest performing in the State?

Not necessarily. Some very high performing schools were not eligible for recognition because they were not held accountable for a sufficient number of disaggregated groups. In addition, some higher performing schools may have failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress with a disaggregated group. What the schools designated as “higher performing/gap closing” have in common is that the majority of their students were proficient, all disaggregated groups made Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years, and the school was accountable for at least three disaggregated groups.

Q6. Did a school have to improve from 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 to be recognized as “higher performing/gap closing”?

No. As long as the school met the State standards and made AYP in 2004-05 it was eligible for recognition. A school that was well above the State standard might decline and still be above the State standard and making AYP.

Q7. Did the majority of students in an accountability group have to be proficient for a school to be recognized as “higher performing/gap closing”?

No. Students in the accountability group had to demonstrate AYP. It was possible in 2004-2005 to make AYP without having a majority of students in an accountability group achieve proficiency. If the group’s performance exceeded a specific amount or the group showed sufficient improvement the group made AYP. Over time, as the targets are raised, it will only be possible to achieve AYP by having a majority of students demonstrate proficiency.

Q8. Can a school or district be In Need of Improvement and also be recognized?

No. All recognized schools and districts are in good standing.

Q9. What is the difference between a “high performing/gap closing” and a “rapidly

improving” school and/or district?

A “high performing/gap closing” school/district must have achieved the State standards for all applicable subjects and must have made AYP for two consecutive years. A “rapidly improving” school/district has not achieved the State standards in one or more of the applicable accountability subjects but it must have improved its performance during the past three years on each applicable criteria and it must have made AYP for three consecutive years. In most cases the absolute level of “high performing/gap closing” schools/districts is their greater percentage of students meeting the State standards compared to the “rapidly improving” schools/districts.

Q10. Are there any monetary rewards or additional flexibility given to higher performing schools or districts?

No. At present, the higher performing/gapclosing list is solely a recognition program. We plan, however, to study the schools and districts identified to determine the commonalties in the strategies they used to achieve their results.

Q11. Where can I get more information about the program?

Please call Ira Schwartz, Coordinator, for Accountability, Policy, and Administration at (718) 722-2796.