Four schools get highest grades

...but reviewers rate Riverdale/ Kingsbridge Academy a notch below

By Kate McNeil

Quality Review Reports, the city Department of Education's newest accountability tool, are slowly being released this month, many weeks after they were promised. Despite the delay, those reports that are available on local schools were promising. Of the 13 schools with released reports, not one was rated "undeveloped" the lowest possible rating. Four schools — PS 24, PS 81, PS/MS 95 and MS/HS 368 — received the highest grade of "welldeveloped." Notably absent from the welldeveloped list was, the David A. Stein Riverdale/Kingsbridge Academy, MS/HS 141. It was given the lower "proficient" status, though its reviewer's criticisms were aimed at the school's data gathering rather than its teaching.

Earlier this year, each of the city's 1,427 schools underwent a rigorous two-day review by Cambridge Education, a UKbased firm hired by the DOE. Reviews focus on how well schools are operating to improve student achievement.

The reporting system is anything but smooth in its first year of operation. Local schools were reviewed between February and April but many reports were not made public until well into the summer.

The Dept. of Ed's Children First Web site states: "The Quality Review Reports will be available approximately five weeks after the last day of the school's Quality Review."

But reports for schools in the Riverdale- Kingsbridge area were nowhere to be found online until Monday and Tuesday after several phone calls to the Department of Education.

PS 24, rated a "well-developed school," was reviewed in March, but its report did not become public until Monday — more than 18 weeks later. PS 7's review, in late February, did not become public for 20 weeks.

Why the delay?

Andrew Jacob, spokesman for the DOE, said it could be a variety of reasons. One being the time it takes for principals to vet and approve the report.

Even so, before a Quality Review Report is posted online, the school principal has only one week to study the report, check it for accuracy and send the Department of Education changes of factual information or highlight discrepancies.

Mr. Jacob also noted a "backlog" of  reports near the end of the school year, and not enough staff to handle it.

He said some principals received the reports during the "end-of-the-year crunch" and so the DOE allowed more time for review and an additional three weeks for them to post online.

Mr. Jacob did not know how to explain why the report for MS/HS 368 was not posted online yet. The school e-mailed the final report to The Riverdale Press on June 27.

Promising results

MS/HS 368 reviewer, Andy McClean, said the school "provides a safe and stimulating environment which fosters self belief in all students."

The school, which offers a laptop to every student, was also lauded for its "effective use of technology both as an instructional tool and as a means to motivate students' learning."

Although the school received good remarks for tracking student progress, the reviewers suggested the school extend its support programs to at-risk students at an earlier stage.

During the two-day reviews, experts noted a "high level of parent involvement" at PS 24, which they rated "well-developed."

The reviewers also said the Spuyten Duyvil school's procedures, policies and school rules contribute to a calm, orderly environment and the halls and classrooms are richly decorated.

The Quality Review Report suggests PS 24 "expand classroom use of Smart Board technology."

Student data at PS 81 is "analyzed thoroughly and is well used in making decisions to meet the needs of all students" helping it become a "well-developed" school. Reviewers suggested the school up the ante on tracking performance in math.

PS/MS 95, was also honored with a "well-developed" rating. The Van Cortlandt Village school needs to continue to make progress with English language learners.

Reviewed in early May, MS/HS 141 received a "proficient" rating. Reviewer Andrew Walker noted, "There are very effective partnerships with parents and community organizations who value the work of the school as a focal center of the community."

He contended that the school needs to beef up "the analysis of whole-school assessment data in order to identify any differences in the performance and progress of students by gender, ethnic groups, subjects and teachers."

Principal praised

Reviewers rated PS 7 a "proficient" school and said, "The new principal is highly respected by students and has handled a period of transition well."

Yet, the school needs to "provide more opportunities for parents to discuss their children's progress."

PS/MS 37, also a proficient school, was praised for its teachers, who "know the students well and respond positively to their academic and personal needs."

However, the school needs to "develop systems for tracking all individual students, classes and grades longitudinally."

Quality Review scores are independent of the grades of A through F that schools will receive on Progress Reports starting in September 2007. The Quality Score measures how well the school and its classrooms are organized to succeed. Schools' Progress Report grades measure actual outcomes.

The DOE explains the difference between the two grades: "The school's Progress Report Grade may be fairly high, but a low Quality Score may suggest that the school's outcomes are likely to fall in the future."