chris cerf deputy chancellor nyc public schools · pdf filenyc teacher data initiative chris...

NYC Teacher Data
Initiative
Chris CerfDeputy ChancellorNYC Public SchoolsOctober, 2008

2
AGENDA
> Introduction: Reform Context
> NYC Model Description
> Sample Teacher Report
> Experience During Pilot Year
> Next Steps

3
AGENDA
> Introduction: Reform Context
> NYC Model Description
> Sample Teacher Report
> Experience During Pilot Year
> Next Steps

4
LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE:
BEFORE 2002
No coherent standards
> 40 distinct districts, each setting itsown rules and standards
Limited accountability
> No authority responsible for results
> Lots of finger pointing
Stagnant results for NYC students
> Generations of students leavingschool without the skills andknowledge needed to succeed

5
NYC SCHOOLS FAILED TO SERVE STUDENTS
> Too many students failing. Only about 50% of fourth-graders and30% of eighth-graders were meeting State standards in math andreading.
> Low and unmoving graduation rates. The City-calculatedgraduation rate stuck around 50% for years.
> Many systems dysfunctional. Books in short supply ; too manyuncertified teachers; paychecks delayed; antiquated technology.
> Limited choices for families. Students and families had few options.
Despite radically uneven distribution of resources and talent

6
CHILDREN FIRST VISION
School Years:
2002-03 to 2005-06
Phase I: Stabilizing
School Years:
2006-07 to 2007-08
Phase II: Devolution,
Transparency, & Accountabiltiy:
P.A.C.E.
(Pre-Children First)
AWFUL ADEQUATE GOOD GREAT
Guiding
Principles
Phases
Depoliticization
Stability & Coherence
Capacity Building
People
- Leadership Academy
- Teacher Quality initiatives
- Performance Management
- Mutual consent teacher placement
Accountability
- Academic targets
- Progress Reports
- Quality Reviews
Choice
- Charter Schools
- New School Development
Empowerment
- School Support Organizations
- Devolution of funds to principals
- Budgetary control to principals
School Years:
2008-09+
SustainabilityStrategies
Core curriculum & coaches
Streamlined / depoliticizedregional structure
Leadership Academy
New small schools & charters
Parent coordinators
End of social promotion
$200M devolved to schools

7
PEOPLE:
HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT IN NYC
Leadership and Governance
Human Capital Policies and Systems
Overall Theory of Change
Transactional Processing
Field Central
Research and Analytics
Training Evaluation Retention &
DismissalRecruitmentSelection &
Placement
Talent Management
Value-Added Data
Teacher Quality Index and
Data
Pathways into teaching
Electronic teacher evaluations
Leadership and Governance
Human Capital Policies and Systems
Overall Theory of Change
Transactional Processing
Field Central
Research and Analytics
Training Evaluation Retention &
DismissalRecruitmentSelection &
Placement
Talent Management
Value-Added Data
Teacher Quality Index and
Data
Pathways into teaching
Electronic teacher evaluations

8
ACCOUNTABILITY
Tools for schools:
> Data about how well students and educators are performingPeriodic Assessments to identify each student's strengths andweaknessesKnowledge Management and inquiry teams to foster innovation andshare successes
> Training in how to use new tools: Children First Intensive professionaldevelopment to build schoolwide capacity in diagnosis of studentneeds, evidence-based individualized instruction, self-evaluation, andcontinuous improvement in student learning.
Holding schools accountable for results:
> Progress Reports (Grades A-F)> Learning Environment Surveys> Quality Reviews> Rewards and consequences based on results
Closed 81 SchoolsChanged 50% of principals in F Schools

9
CHOICE AND COMPETITION
>Opened 350+ new schools serving 110,000 students
>Increased the number of new charter schools from 17 to 60
>Closed 81 schools
>Full High School Choice

10
EMPOWERMENTEmpowered schools have:
> More power over
Budgets
Staffing
Programs
> More authority to tailor instruction and programs to the specific needs of theirschools and students
> New funding and more equitable distribution of resources to schools
Decisions made close to students:
> The best decisions are made at the school level, by the people closest to studentsbecause they understand students needs.
Individualized support options:
> Principals used to get support based on their geographic locations, not theirindividual needs .
> Now, they choose whats best for them from more than a dozen DOE and non-profit options (school support organizations).

11
48
50 50 50
51 51
53
54
58
60
62
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Percentageof
Cohort
62.0%
13.8%
24.2%
Graduates
Dropouts
Still Enrolled
Class of
STEADY GROWTH IN FOUR YEAR GRADUATION RATE
SINCE 02 USING TRADITIONAL CITY METHOD
Since 2002, the graduation rate has increased by 11 points (using the same
methodology the City has used for decades). The City has gained an average
of about two points each year since 2002.
Note: The New York City traditional calculation includes Local and Regents Diplomas, GEDs, IEP diplomas, and
August graduates. It does not include disabled students in self-contained classrooms or District 75 students.

12
74.1%
79.1% 78.4%
81.7%78.7%
86.2% 86.9%90.0%
83.5%85.1%
87.6%
48.9%
43.5%
50.5%47.7%
62.3%
66.1%
73.1%
56.1%
52.7%
62.3%
79.7%
52.0%
70.9%
46.2%
49.6%51.8%
77.4%
68.1%66.7%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
New York CityRest of State (NYS Big Four and NYC) Big Four
Note: Rest of State = NYS - Big 4 (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers) NYC
NYC COMPARED TO BIG 4 & REST OF STATE
MATH GRADE 4
Percentageof
Studentsin Levels
3+4
+ 14.6 pts.- 1.2 pts.Big Four
+ 27.7 pts.+ 2.4 pts.New York City
+ 8.9 pts.- 0.4 pts.Rest of State
2002-2008 Change1999-2002 Change

13
46.5%
56.0%
61.3%60.6%
70.8% 71.7% 72.0% 72.0% 71.0%
77.0%75.0% 76.0%
78.1%
28.8%
38.3%41.1%
42.8% 44.3% 43.5%
54.2%
49.2%46.4%
50.5%
52.5%49.6%
59.5%
43.9%
32.7%
41.7%
58.9%
New York CityRest of State (NYS Big Four and NYC) Big Four
Note: Rest of State = NYS - Big 4 (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers) NYC.
ELA GRADE 4
Percentageof
Studentsin Levels
3+4
In 2007, the New York State Education Department updated its testing policy for English Language Learners. ELLs who have attended school in the US for more than one year must take
the ELA exam. Previously, ELLs in an English Language School System for less than 3 years (or qualified for a 4th or 5th year extension of services) were exempt from taking the ELA.
15.510,8734.62,938New York City
% of Tested Students# of ELLs% of Tested Students# of ELLsELLs Tested
3.2
1.0
743
2,584
9.4227Big Four
2.21,214Rest of State
20072006
+ 7.7 pts.+ 14.0 pts.Big Four
+ 6.1 pts.+ 11.4 pts.Rest of State
2002-2008 Change1999-2002 Change
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

14
61.0%
70.5% 71.0% 69.4%
76.0%74.0%
75.7%77.8%
60.3%62.4%
66.8%
51.0%49.1%
54.0%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
NYC COMPARED TO REST OF STATE
ELA GRADE 4, ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS
+ 7.3 pts.Rest of State
+ 17.7 pts.New York City
2002-2008 Change
New York CityRest of State (NYS - NYC)
Percentageof
Studentsin Levels
3+4
Note: Data on the number of English Language Learners/ English Proficient Students not made available by SED prior to 2002.

15
29.8%
45.6%
59.6%
47.4%
51.5%50.0%
59.5%62.6%
68.4%65.8% 64.9%
68.6%
77.8%
17.0% 16.6%14.4%
19.7%
23.7%
28.7%25.2%
20.7%23.5%
34.3%
34.4%
42.4%40.8%
22.8%22.8% 22.3%
38.9%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
New York CityRest of State (NYS Big Four and NYC) Big Four*
Note: Rest of State = NYS - Big 4 (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers) NYC
MATH GRADE 8
Percentageof
Studentsin Levels
3+4
+ 14.6 pts.+ 2.7 pts.Big Four
+ 18.3 pts.+ 12.1 pts.Rest of State
2002-2008 Change1999-2002 Change

16
29.5%
41.8% 43.0%

chris cerf deputy chancellor nyc public schools · pdf filenyc teacher data initiative chris...

Documents