School Receivership Overview
Update on School Receivership
Receivership Demonstrable Improvement and Renewal Benchmarks
Questions & Answers
Next Steps/Resources & Supports
3.School Receivership Overview
Section 211-f of the State Education Law, created in spring 2015, established the School Receivership program as an intervention strategy to turn around struggling schools.
Under this law, and Commissioner’s regulation 100.19, “Persistently Struggling Schools,” defined as current Priority Schools that have been in the most severe accountability status since the 2006-07 school year, received a one-year period under the Chancellor’s Receivership to improve student performance.
“Struggling Schools,” schools that have been Priority Schools since the 2012-13 school year, are now in the second year of a two-year period under the Chancellor's Receivership to improve student performance.
4.School Receivership Update
In NYC, there are now 27 schools (formerly 62 schools) that are subject to the state’s Receivership law, including 24 schools designated as “Struggling” and 3 schools designated as “Persistently Struggling.”
Under the Chancellor’s Receivership plan, the School Renewal Program is the NYCDOE’s core strategy for turning around Struggling and Persistently Struggling Schools.
All 27 of the Struggling and Persistently Struggling Schools are also Renewal Schools and have already begun implementing significant interventions with additional resources and support to accelerate student performance and help close achievement gaps.
Renewal Schools Benchmark Selection Refresher
In June 2015, all Renewal Schools selected six or seven benchmarks on which to show progress in the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 school years:
Develop and put in place a School Renewal Plan for transformation by Spring 2015.
Meet concrete milestones defined in its School Renewal Plan and improve on targeted elements of the Framework for Great Schools, as identified in the needs assessment.
Demonstrate measurable improvement in student attendance.
Demonstrate significant improvement in academic achievement.
Maintain strong leading indicators
6.Original targets for the original renewal benchmarks were set as follows:
Student Achievement benchmark for 2016-17: This is equal to the “meeting target” value on the 2013-14 School Quality Guide which was based primarily on the performance of a group of up to 40 peer schools.
Student Achievement progress targets for 2014-15 and 2015-16: These are based on closing the gap between the 2013-14 (year zero) baseline and the 2016-17 (year three) benchmark. Schools are expected to close 20% of that gap between years zero and one, an additional 30% of the gap between years one and two, and the remaining 50% of the gap between years two and three.
Framework indicators target for 2015-16: The original target for all schools is 3.00 (i.e. “Meeting Target” on the snapshot).
Other Leading Indicators for 2015-16: The attendance target is the meeting target value from 2013-14 School Quality Guide. The targets for Progress to Graduation were created using the same peer groups and formulas used for other metrics in the 2013-14 SQG.
Renewal Schools Benchmark Refresher
Renewal Benchmarks and Receivership Benchmarks
For schools that are both Renewal and Receivership, the Renewal and Receivership Benchmarks are aligned:
All Receivership Benchmarks are a subset of Renewal Benchmarks.
While the targets for these overlapping Benchmarks are not always identical, the Receivership Benchmark targets are always equal to or lower than the Renewal Benchmarks targets.
That means that any school that meets its Renewal Benchmark targets has by definition also met its Receivership Benchmark targets.
Renewal and Receivership Benchmark Update
All Renewal Schools are now receiving an update, indicating SY 2015-16 performance on their selected Renewal Benchmarks.
The updates for 27 Renewal Schools that are also in Receivership include SED-mandated Receivership benchmarks to account for this designation.
In some cases SED has added new “level one” Receivership benchmarks due to low performance in 2015-16. These are indicated on the update document with a footnote.
Renewal Benchmark Update
In order to ensure that all schools are accountable for increasing performance, some of the original Renewal progress targets have been replaced with a strengthened challenge target; these targets are noted with an asterisk in the update document.
If a school’s year one (2014-15) result exceeded the year two (2015-16) target, then the year two target was replaced with a challenge target to be slightly higher than the year one result and the year three target was strengthened to a challenge target to be slightly higher than the year two target.
If a school’s year two result exceeded the year three (2016-17) target, then the year three target was replaced with a challenge target to be slightly higher than the year two result.
Note: Only the original Renewal targets were replaced with strengthened challenge targets; benchmarks added due to Receivership have not been replaced with challenge targets in order to ensure alignment with Demonstrable Improvement scoring methodology.
Renewal Benchmark Update
Progress toward meeting original Renewal benchmark results is characterized in one of four ways:
Met Target: 2015-16 result is at or above the 2015-16 benchmark, including the challenge benchmark if applicable
Met Original Target: 2015-16 result is below the 2015-16 challenge benchmark but at or above the original target benchmark
Flat: 2015-16 result is lower than the original 2015-16 benchmark but at or above the 2013-14 baseline
Decline: 2015-16 result is lower than the 2013-14 baseline
11.Framework and Safety Survey Scoring
As part of the renewal program, each school chose two of the six areas of the Framework for Great Schools. These indicators are also included as receivership benchmarks, where applicable.
Some receivership schools also have “School Survey: Safety” which is a subsection of the Supportive Environment. The score can be found on the School Quality Guide.
The scale changed for these metrics in 2014-15. The renewal parts of the menu use the new scale to match the SQR. The receivership parts of the menu use the old scale to match the SED Demonstrable Improvement calculations.
12.Three of the Framework indicators contain Quality Review indicators. These QR scores are factored into the score for Renewal Benchmarks, but not Receivership (SED did not allow them in the score).
For both Renewal and Receivership, a minimum QR score is needed for the applicable metrics.
Framework and Safety Survey Scoring
13.Non-SQR Metric Definitions
Most of the Renewal and Receivership benchmarks come from the School Quality Reports. The Educator’s Guide to the SQR explains the methods. August outcomes are included for HS. There are a few exceptions:
Performance Index on ELA or Math comes from the State Report Card. It is a number from 0 to 200 that is the percent level two or higher plus the percent level three or higher
Progress Toward Graduation is the percentage of students in year two and three who meet the SQR 10 credit metric and passed at least four Regents requirements (end of year three) or two Regents requirements (end of year two)
Math Regents Percent Passed by Year 2 and English Regents Percent Passed by Year 3 are the percentage of students that have completed that Regents within the given number of years in high school. Only Regents through June of year 2/3 count toward this metric.
14.College Metrics Definitions
College and Career Prep Course Index is the percent of students who, by the end of year four have successfully completed one or more of the following:
College Readiness Index is the percent of students who, by the end of year four have test scores high enough to avoid remediation at CUNY. This includes passing algebra II or higher course and strong scores in ELA and Math on one of the following exams: Regents, SAT, ACT, or CUNY Assessment Test
15.Year by Year High School Metrics
For the 2016-17 Renewal / Receivership HS student achievement metrics, metrics apply to students in different years of HS:
Note: all students are include in Attendance, survey, and QR.
Example of a Renewal School Benchmark Update for Receivership Schools
Six original benchmarks chosen in June 2015
Eight SED-Mandated Benchmarks
This sample elementary/middle Renewal School is also a Receivership school and has 14 Renewal Benchmarks total:
17.Receivership Benchmark Example
SED- Mandated Student Outcome Benchmarks
SED Process Benchmarks
Original Renewal Benchmarks
When Renewal and Receivership Benchmarks are based on the same metric, the target for Receivership is always the same or lower.
In some cases SED has added new “level one” Receivership benchmarks due to low performance in SY 2015-16. These are indicated on the update document with a footnote.
The second page of the Renewal/Receivership Benchmark Report shows the Receivership benchmarks and Demonstrable Improvement scoring.
New “Level One” benchmark for SY16-17
Demonstrable Improvement Index
The Receivership Benchmarks comprise the school’s “Demonstrable Improvement Index” (DII). The calculation of the 2015-16 DII is shown on the Receivership Benchmark Update page. The DII is a number from 0% to 100%.
Each group of metrics, Level One and Level Two, is worth 50 points for a total of 100. The “points possible” for each metric is 50 divided by the number of metrics in the group.
The “points earned” is the same as points possible if the target is met and zero otherwise.
In the example to the right there were five level one metrics worth 10 points each in 2015-16. One new metric is added for 2016-17 so each of the six will be worth 8.3 points for 2016-17.
Showing Demonstrable Improvement
Schools scoring a DII of 67% or higher will have shown Demonstrable Improvement.
Schools scoring a DII of 39% or lower will not have shown Demonstrable Improvement.
For schools scoring between 40% and 66%, the State Education Commissioner will determine whether they have shown Demonstrable Improvement on a case-by-case basis.
Schools that do not show Demonstrable Improvement may be placed in Independent Receivership.
“Persistently Struggling” schools must show “Demonstrable Improvement” based on 2015-16 results to avoid Independent Receivership.
“Struggling” schools must show “Demonstrable Improvement” based on two years of results (2015-16 and 2016-17) to avoid Independent Receivership.
The 2015-16 results for Struggling Schools do not carry consequences – schools stay in Chancellor’s Receivership for this school year regardless of the score.
SED is planning to release the 2015-16 scores for Struggling schools as a marker of progress.
Schools that make Demonstrable Improvement in 2015-16 stay in Chancellor’s Receivership. The only way to be removed from Receivership status is to be removed from Priority status.
To be removed from Priority status a school must have a graduation rate of 60%, meet minimum performance index requirements, have 95% participation on state tests, and must have two years in a row of Priority progress. There are seven possible ways to make Priority progress listed here: http://tinyurl.com/PriorityProgress
Since all Receivership schools were identified as Priority based on the 2014-15 data, the first opportunity to be removed is based on progress in 2015-16 and 2016-17. Each school’s Priority progress status for 2015-16 is noted on the benchmark update document.
Here is an example of a school that did not make priority progress for 2015-16:
Showing Demonstrable Improvement
The Demonstrable Improvement calculation is separate each year. A strong or weak score in 2015-16 does not necessarily imply a strong or weak score for 2016-17.
Each year, the Demonstrable Improvement benchmarks get higher. For example, schools are expected to increase their graduation rate by one percentage point after one year, three percentage points after two years, and six percentage points after three years.
Because of the Demonstrable Improvement scoring methodology, a school is more likely to achieve a high DII if it meets more benchmarks by a small amount than fewer benchmarks by a large amount.
Showing Demonstrable Improvement
“Persistently Struggling” schools were evaluated for Demonstrable Improvement at the end of the 2015-16 school year. Those that stayed remain in Chancellor’s Receivership will be evaluated again at the end of 2016-17.
“Struggling” schools will be evaluated at the end of the 2016-17 school year for Demonstrable Improvement.
When assessing school progress, SED will consider:
Performance on Metrics
Years of Identification
Chancellor’s successful use of the powers of a School Receiver to implement the school’s plan.
Schools that have shown Demonstrable Improvement will not be placed into Independent Receivership; however they will maintain their “Struggling” or “Persistently Struggling” status and remain in Chancellor’s Receivership until such time that they have been removed from Priority status.
Resources and Support
For general questions regarding requirements for Renewal Schools, please contact your Director of School Renewal.
For questions related to Receivership or Renewal benchmark methodology or Demonstrable Improvement methodology, please contact your Performance and Assessment Lead.
For questions related to budget, monitoring, and reporting implications for Receivership schools, please contact Receivership@schools.nyc.gov.