Proposal for Closure

Proposal for Closure

The proposal for closure is based on data on significant time increments: 10 years, 5 years and 3 years.  We only have data from the past three years so we feel that anything before needs to be disregarded and not utilized as part the proposal for closure as the public does not have access to that data. What we do have data that begins in 2008 and so we can comment on that.

 

The first thing that should be noted are the differences between past administration and current administration.  Ms. Mosely, our current principal, has only been here since 2010 and so a closure should be based on her data.  While we recognize that it is important to compare the year or two before Ms. Mosely, what we find appalling is the evaluation of Ms. Mosely and her ability to create change.  She has only had one year of data and so at this moment, the DOE is unable to fully evaluate her capacity to change the school in the future.

[How did the DOE evaluate Ms. Mosely’s capacity to create change in the school? Does the DOE regularly just give one year to principals to create change? What is the data regarding this?]

 

There are two aspects to discuss here:

  • A comparison of principal to principal
  • A comparison of one year to the next year by the same principal

 

Since, neither us or the DOE have the data to compare yearly gains of Ms. Mosely to evaluate her capacity to increase graduation rates and better learning outcomes, we can discuss the comparison of principal to principal.

 

According to the Progress Reports:

 

  2008-2009 Gregory Rodrigues 2009-2010

Gregory Rodrigues

2010-2011

Joan Mosely

Areas of evaluation
School Environment 7.6 of 15

C

8.0 of 15

C

6.0 of 15

D

School survey, attendance rate
Student Performance 9.8 of 25

D

7.5 of 25

F

10.1 of 25

D

Graduation rate, weighed diploma rate
Student Progress 25.7 of 60

D

35.5 of 60

B

19.3 of 60

F

Credit accumulation, regents passing rates
Overall Score D C F  

 

 

By looking at the numbers, we can see that there was a decrease in school environment and student progress from 2009-2010 school year to 2010-2011 school year.  There was a significant numerical increase in student performance from 7.5 to 10.1 out of 25 because of the 6 year graduation rate and weighed diploma rate.  The decrease in student progress was mostly because of credit accumulation.  In fact, Ms. Mosely received 6.16 points for regents pass rates compared to 5.78 the year before.  Under deeper inspection, when we analyze the specific areas of evaluation such as school environment, we see that there were not many differences numerically in school survey data, but the points lost were because of attendance rate.  In the next sections, we will discuss the differences between principals and other factors that affect each of these measures by looking at the school environment, student performance and progress.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s