Student Performance and Student Progress
The Intersection between graduation rate and credit-accumulation rate
According to the Educational Impact Statement, Legacy is being proposed for phase-out and closure due to the declining graduation rate. For the year 2009-2010, our four-year graduation rate was 59% and then it decreased to 43% during Ms. Mosely’s first year. However, Ms. Mosely’s 6-year graduation increased to 64% compared to 44% from the previous year. Additionally, the students who were graduating with a Regent’s Diploma increased from 19% to 33%. For the year 2009-2010, only 28% of students in the Class of 2010 (students who entered high school four years earlier) enrolled in a two- or four-year college by December 31, 2010. If you include the citywide statistic that only 13% of Black and Latino students are college-ready, we begin to see a different picture. It looks like more students were graduating under the previous administration, but that they were not necessarily prepared for college as so few of them actually graduated with a Regent’s Diploma. Additionally, teachers and students were surprised to see certain students graduate for the school year 2009-2010. With reports from students and parents that academic rigor has increased under Ms. Mosely’s leadership and the data-driven nature of the administration, we can’t help but question the previous administration’s graduation and credit-accumulation rates.
We are calling on an investigation of the graduation rate and credit-accumulation rate. Evidence shows that the past administration was not fully equipped to change this school and that they were not data-driven. In the Quality Review of 2009-2010, many of items that Legacy needed to improve primarily focused on the principal and his capacity to be data-driven. The chart below demonstrates the areas of improvement as stated by the Quality Review and categories.
|Area of Improvement as stated in Quality Review 2009-2010||Categories|
|Consistently examine student achievement data to identify trends and subgroup
needs in order to apply strategic curricular and instructional adjustments across
|Data and curriculum|
|Develop focused goals with specific actions in long-term planning, and a strategy
for measuring progress, so that the school community can fully understand and
support work toward interim and long-term goals.
|Data and short-term and long-term goals|
|Promote greater consistency in using data to differentiate instruction so that
lesson planning reflects purposeful groupings, tasks accommodate different
learning styles and questioning extends thinking, thereby maximizing learning.
|Data and differentiation|
|Refine action planning by developing interim goals and benchmarks for all plans
so that progress can be measured, adjustments made, and success evaluated.
|Data and assessments|
|Implement a professional development plan, aligned with whole school and
teacher goals, develop leadership potential, and ensure that rigorous monitoring
procedures are introduced to evaluate the impact of actions on achievement.
|Data and professional development|
In comparison, in the Quality Review of 2010-2011, the first item under what the school does well was:
“A highly strategic new principal builds school-wide coherence through the development of data driven, multi-year goals with action plans, clearly linked to accelerating student learning.”
While there are areas that we need to improve, we believe that Ms. Mosely is deeply committed to data and correctly documenting it. Therefore, if we are being closed because of data, it should be ACCURATE data.
In conclusion, we are calling on an investigation of the graduation rates and credit-accumulation rates under the past administration. At the same time, we are not blaming the past administration exclusively for what happened at Legacy. In fact, we believe that the blame should be placed on the Department of Education. The past administration came from the Leadership Academy, a pilot program started under the Bloomberg Administration. Though some analyses found that schools run by the program’s graduates underperformed those led by principals who had more experience or more traditional backgrounds, the city expanded the program, which began with private funds, and incorporated it into the budget. Our past administration was a principal who underperformed. In 2009-2010, the current administration did not meet expectations as set by the Superintendent according to NY1 Report on Principal Ratings, obtained from the DOE through a Freedom of Information Request.  He was demoted and removed from Legacy. He remains in the system as an assistant principal at John Bowne. We are skeptical and call for an investigation as this same past administration was also up for a bonus the year before he left according to the New York Times and the website of the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators. 
Without an investigation and full disclosure of findings to the public, the Department of Education has no case for closing Legacy.