THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

TO:	The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents
FROM:	James A. Kadamus
COMMITTEE:	Full Board
TITLE OF ITEM:	Schools Under Registration Review (SURR)
DATE OF SUBMISSION:	December 22, 2003
PROPOSED HANDLING:	Discussion
RATIONALE FOR ITEM:	Update on Policy Implementation
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goal 2
AUTHORIZATION (S):

 

 

SUMMARY:

 

The attached report analyzes the performance of current and former SURR schools during the 2002-2003 school year, draws attention to some of the important trends in SURR schools, and highlights the strengths of the process and opportunities for improvement.

 

The report finds that, while the performance of SURR schools is generally low, most SURR schools showed improvement last year at rates substantially greater than other schools statewide.  Schools that were removed from registration review performed consistently higher than current SURR schools.  Overall, the SURR process has shown much greater success at the elementary school level compared to that at the middle school level or with high schools. The report also notes that, as we continue to transition to standards based on proficiency rather than minimum competency, some former SURR high schools are not showing adequate performance.  The report also predicts that, as more schools and districts are identified for improvement under No Child Left Behind, the Department and school districts will become more challenged to provide the intensive support and assistance necessary to improve performance in SURR schools.

 

These observations underscore that, while the registration review process has had a positive effect on student results in SURR schools, much more effort will be required to ensure that all students in these schools will be successfully prepared to meet the new State learning standards and higher graduation requirements.

 

Attachment

Report on Schools Under Registration Review (SURR)

 

I.          Introduction

 

            Since 1989, the registration review process has been a primary method by which the State Education Department works to strengthen teaching and learning in schools where student performance is below minimum standards.  The overwhelming majority of schools that have been identified by the process are located in urban communities with high levels of socioeconomic need.  Since the inception of the process through the 2002-03 school year, 251 schools have been identified for registration review.  Between 1989 and September 2003, 145 schools were removed from registration review because of improved student results.  An additional 39 schools have been closed pursuant to a plan developed by the local school district and approved by the Commissioner.  Seventy–seven (77) schools, including Kensington High School in Buffalo which has no students enrolled during the 2002-03 school year, are currently under registration review, of which 55 are located in New York City.

 

            This report is divided into three sections.  Following the Introduction, Section II of this report provides an analysis of the performance of current and former SURR schools during the 2002-2003 school year. Section III of the report summarizes those components of the SURR process that have contributed to improvements in the performance of SURR schools and identifies opportunities for further improvement in the process.

 

Among the trends observed during the 2002-03 school year were the following:

 

-          Over the last several years, there has been a significant decline in the average length of time that a school remains under registration review.  During this period, the goal of schools remaining under registration review for no more than three full academic years has been met for the majority of schools.

-       The percentage of elementary schools under registration review continues to decline and the percentage of upstate schools that are under registration review continues to increase.

-          At the elementary and middle school levels, SURR schools as a group made strong gains in English language arts and mathematics.  The large majority of schools showed improvement and the amount of improvement in SURR schools far exceeded the State averages on these four assessments.

-          The vast majority of former SURR schools perform at levels that place them above the cutpoint for being farthest from State standards but below the level necessary to meet State standards.  At the elementary and middle school levels, the longer ago a school was identified for registration review, the higher its performance was likely to be on the 2002-2003 school-year assessments.

-          The Department has over the past several years consistently raised the cutpoint which schools must achieve to avoid being potentially identified as SURR.  Nevertheless, the number of schools performing below the cutpoint has declined, particularly at the elementary school level, indicating there has been success at “raising the floor” in terms of school performance.

-          The number of former SURR elementary and middle schools that were farthest from State standards declined in 2002-03 compared to the prior two years.  However, the performance of schools in New York City that were opened to replace schools that were closed or phased out as part of the SURR process is a cause for concern.

-          Many former SURR high schools perform poorly in relation to State standards, particularly the math standard.

-          In addition to promoting school-by-school reform, the Regents and Department must be successful in its Closing the Gap strategy if SURR schools are to eventually reach levels of performance comparable to that of other schools in the State.

 

 

II.         Status of SURR Schools

           

Observation #1:  Number of Schools Identified for Registration Review   Finding: Between 1994-1995 and 2001-2002, the number of schools identified for registration review has been relatively stable and has averaged 22 per year.  In 2002-03, nine schools were identified, the smallest number of schools since 1993-94.   Observations:   -          After a large group of schools were identified in the first year of the program in 1989, the number of schools identified declined in each of the next several years. Between 1994 and 2001-2002, the number of schools identified for registration review remained relatively constant, ranging from a low of 19 in 1995-1996 to a high of 26 in 2000-2001.  -          In 2002-03, the number of schools identified declined even though the cutpoint for identification on State assessments continued to rise at the elementary and middle school levels.  This reflects the fact that over time there has been improvement in the results of the lowest performing schools in the State, particularly at the elementary school level. -          In December 2000, for the first time, schools that had been removed from registration review were re-identified SURR schools.  While nine schools were re-identified during the 2000-01 and 2001-02 school years, only one school was re-identified in 2002-03.

 

Table IA

Number of SURR Schools Identified By Year

1989-1990 to 2001-2002

 

School Year	Number Identified	Cumulative Number Identified
1989-1990	43	43
1990-1991	17	60
1991-1992	12	72
1992-1993	0	72
1993-1994	4	76
1994-1995	20	96
1995-1996	19	115
1996-1997	25	140
1997-1998	19	159
1998-1999	23	182
1999-2000	24	206
2000-2001	26	232
2001-2002	20	252
2002-2003	9	261

 

Notes: Because of a regulatory change in the timeline for identification of SURR schools, no schools were identified during the 1992-1993 school year. The five schools that were re-identified as SURR in 2000-2001, the four re-identified in 2001-2002, and one school re-identified in 2002-03 are counted both in their year of initial identification and their year of re-identification.   Thus, since 1989, 251 schools have been identified as SURR schools, including 10 schools that have been identified twice.

 

Table IB

Farthest From State Standards

Elementary and Middle Schools

1996-2001

 

 

Notes:  State Reference Point (SRP) is a standard of minimum competency.  Grades 4 and 8 ELA and math cutpoints are based upon the School Accountability Performance Index (SPI). 

 

Table IC

Farthest From State Standards

High Schools

1996-2001

 

 

Notes: 1999-2000 cutpoints for High School ELA and math are based on the percentage of the annual high school cohort meeting graduation assessment requirements.  2000-2002 cutpoints for high school ELA and math are based on the percentage of the high school cohort meeting graduation assessment requirements.  The cutpoint for 2003 is based on the High School Performance Index.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observation #2: Reasons For Low Performance Cited in Registration Review Reports   Finding:   Failure of schools to align instruction with State standards, ineffective instruction, and failure to use data to plan instruction were among the most frequently cited reasons cited by registration review teams in their reports on newly identified SURR schools.   Observations:   -          With the exception of faulty academic intervention services, all of the top 10 factors cited in last year’s registration reviews were also cited as among the top 10 factors in reports from either of the two prior years.  Year after year, low-performing schools are cited for a similar range of factors involving low student expectations, deficiencies in curriculum and instruction, and inexperienced and/or unqualified staff and leadership. -          The failure to align instruction with State standards has emerged as a critical issue in schools identified for registration review. -          Ineffective instructional methods is the one area that has been cited as among the top five factors in each of the past three years. -          Compared to earlier years, low academic standards and many uncertified teachers were not among the top 10 factors cited in last year’s reports.

 

 

 

 

Observation #3:  Removal of Schools From Registration Review   Finding: Between the 1993-1994 and 1998-1999 school years, the number of schools removed from review increased dramatically.  Since then the number of schools removed from review has shown some variability and has averaged 23 per year.   -          In 1993-94, only one school was removed from registration review.  Over the next four years, the number removed each year increased and, in 1997-1998, 25 schools were removed from review.  In the last four years, the number of schools removed has ranged from 18 to 29 and has averaged 23 per year.  -          In 2002-03, the 20 schools removed for academic performance was the largest number ever removed in a single year on that basis. -          While the majority of schools are removed from review because of improved student results, the implementation of Commissioner’s Regulations that require schools to “perform or perish” has resulted in a significant number of school closings in the past several years. For the first time in 2002-03, school districts outside of New York City designated SURR schools for closure, with Buffalo and Newburgh closing SURR schools at the end of the 2002-2003 school year.

 

Table 3

Number of SURR Schools Removed from Registration Review

1989-1990 to 2002-2003

 

Year	Number of Schools Removed	Number Removed for Performance*	Number Removed for Closure	Cumulative Total Removed
1989-1990	0	0	0	0
1990-1991	7	7	0	7
1991-1992	3	3	0	10
1992-1993	5	5	0	15
1993-1994	0	0	0	15
1994-1995	1	1	0	16
1995-1996	11	11	0	27
1996-1997	13	13	0	40
1997-1998	21	18	3	61
1998-1999	25	19	6	86
1999-2000	18	15	3	104
2000-2001	29	14	15	133
2001-2002	27	19	8	160
2002-2003	24	20	4	184
Total	184	145	39	-

 

* Includes four schools that were removed prior to 1996 as a result of implementation of a school restructuring or redesign plan.

 

Notes:  Includes 10 schools that were subsequently re-identified, one of which subsequently closed.   Does not include Kensington High School in Buffalo, which has no enrollment in 2003-2004 and will be officially closed after this school year.

Observation #4:  Length of Time Under Registration Review of Current SURR Schools    Finding: The vast majority of current SURR schools have been under registration review for less than three full academic years.   Eighty-three percent of current SURR schools have been under registration review for less than three full academic years.  Sixty-one percent of current SURR schools have been identified since January 2001.

 

 

Table 4

Length of Time Current SURR Schools Under Registration Review

 

Time Under Registration Review	Percentage of Schools	Cumulative Percentage of Schools
Less than one Year	12%	12%
One Year	23%	35%
Two Years	26%	61%
Three Years	21%	83%
More than Three Years	17%	100%
Total	100%	---

Observation #5:  Length of Time Schools Remain Under Registration Review   Finding:  The average length of time that schools spend under registration review has declined sharply in recent years.   -          Prior to the establishment in 1996 of timeframes by which SURR schools must meet performance targets, it was unusual for schools to be removed from registration review within three full academic years of their identification.  Of the schools identified for registration between 1989 and 1993, fewer than one in four (24 percent) were removed from registration review within three full academic years. By contrast, of the schools identified between 1995 and 1998, two-thirds (67 percent) were removed from registration review within three full academic years. -          As of June 2003, of the 182 schools identified for registration review prior to 1999-2000, only 23 were under registration review, nine because of subsequent re-identification. This belies the notion that schools “languish” under review for many years.

 

 

 

Table 5

Time Under Registration Review

By Year of Initial SURR Identification

 

 

 

 

Observation #6:  Grade Configuration of Schools Identified for Registration Review   Finding: Since the administration of the new State assessments in 1999, a dispro-portionately large and increasing number of schools with middle-level grades have been identified for registration review.   -          Prior to the adoption of the new State assessments in 1999, elementary, middle, and high schools were identified for registration review in numbers that were generally proportionate to the percentage of elementary, middle, and high schools in the State. -          Since 1999, schools administering middle-level examinations have been over- represented in terms of schools identified for registration review.  During the 1999-2000 school year, 50 percent of the schools identified as SURR were schools with either middle-level or K-8 configurations.  By the 2001-2002 school year, this number had grown to 70 percent.  This overrepresentation of middle schools for identification for registration review is another manifestation of the need for new strategies to address middle-level schooling in New York State. -          In 2002-2003, two-thirds of the identified schools were high schools.  As the RCTs have been phased out as a means for meeting the graduation assessment standards in ELA and math, more high schools are being identified as farthest from State standards in terms of their ability to have students meet the graduation assessment requirements within four years of a student’s first entry into grade nine.

 

 

Table 6

Number and Percent of SURR Schools Administering

 Elementary, Middle and Regents Exams

By Year of Identification

 

School Year	Elementary	Middle	High School	Total Schools Identified
1999-2000	12 (50%)	12 (50%)	2 (8%)	24
2000-2001	10 (38%)	19 (69%)	4 (15%)	26
2001-2002	6 (30%)	14 (70%)	3 (13%)	20
2002-2003	2 (22%)	2 (22%)	6 (67%)	9
Total	30 (48%)	47 (59%)	15 (19%)	79

 

Note: In 1999-2000, two K-8 schools were identified; in 2000-2001, seven K-8 schools were identified; in 2001-2002, three K-8 schools were identified; and in 2002-2003, one K-8 school was identified. Percents, therefore, equal more than 100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7

Identification of SURR Schools

NYC vs. ROS

 

 

Note:  The 10 New York City re-identified SURR schools are also counted among the 166 New York City SURR schools identified between 1989 and 1998.

 

 

Table 8A

Change In Performance of SURR Schools

on School Accountability Performance Index (SPI)

2003 vs. 2002 Test Administrations

 

Includes performance of all schools that were SURR schools at time of test administrations during the 2002-2003 school year.

 

Note:  The SPI ranges from 0 to 200.  If all students in a school perform at Level 1, the SPI will be 0.  If all students perform at or above Level 3, the SPI will be 200.  The State standard for the 2003 test administration was a SPI of 150.  The SPI will increase by one point for each one percent increase in the number of students performing at or above Level 3, or each one percent decrease in the number of students performing at Level 1.

 

Table 8B

Change In Performance of SURR Schools

Number and Percent Showing Gains

on School Accountability Performance Index (SPI)

2003 vs. 2002 Test Administrations

Includes performance of all schools that were SURR schools at time of test administrations during the 2002-2003 school year.

 

Table 9A

Performance of Former SURR Schools

 

on School Accountability Performance Index (SPI)

2003 Test Administrations

 

Subject	# of Schools	Number Students Tested	SPI 2003	Gain/Loss from SPI 2002
Grade 4 ELA	102	10,528	126	+15
Grade 4 Math	102	10,509	147	+27
Grade 8 ELA	22	4,255	104	-1
Grade 8 Math	22	4,214	101	+15

 

Note:  Does not include performance of schools that were closed in June 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9B

Performance of Former SURR Schools

2002-2003 School Year Test Administrations

 

Subject	# of Schools	# of Schools Farthest From State Standards	# of Schools Meeting State Standards
Grade 4 ELA	102	0	7
Grade 4 Math	102	0	46
Grade 8 ELA	22	2	1
Grade 8 Math	22	0	2

 

Farthest from State Standards = 82 in grade 4 ELA and math and grade 8 ELA and 55 in grade 8 Math.  State standard = 150

 

Note:  Does not include performance of schools that were closed in June 2003.

 

 

 

Table 9C

Performance of Former SURR Schools

on School Accountability Performance Index (SPI)

2003 Test Administrations

 

Subject	State Standard	Farthest From State Standard	SPI 2003	Gap Reduction
Grade 4 ELA	150	82	126	65%
Grade 4 Math	150	82	147	96%
Grade 8 ELA	150	82	105	32%
Grade 8 Math	150	55	102	49%

 

Note:  Does not include performance of schools that were closed in June 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observation #10:  Performance of Current and Former SURR Elementary and Middle Schools Over Time   Finding: The longer ago a school was first identified for registration review, the better the school is likely to be performing today.   -          The longer ago a school was placed under registration review, the higher its performance was likely to be last year relative to other current and former Schools Under Registration Review identified more recently. -          This trend was consistently observed on both the grade 4 and grade 8 ELA and math examinations.  This suggests that even though a few schools have been re-identified for registration review, overall SURR schools continue to improve after their removal from review.

 

Table 10

School Accountability Performance Index of Current and Former SURR Schools

By Year of Initial Identification

Year of Initial Identification	ELA 4	Math 4	ELA 8	Math 8
1989-1994	126	148	110	104
1995-1998	123	143	92	82
1999-2003	116	141	95	77

 

 

Observation #11: Performance of Schools Removed from Registration Review in 2003   Finding:  In the aggregate, schools removed from registration review showed gains on all criteria except grade 8 ELA, where there was a decline in performance.   Newly removed elementary schools continued to show gains that were stronger than that for other former SURR schools, but middle schools showed little gain in grade 8 math and a decline in grade 8 ELA after removal from SURR.

 

 

Table 11

Performance of Schools Removed from Registration Review January 2003

on School Accountability Performance Index (SPI)

2003 Test Administrations

Subject	# of Schools	SPI 2002	SPI 2003	Gain/Loss from SPI 2003
Grade 4 ELA	14	111	131	+20
Grade 4 Math	14	124	153	+29
Grade 8 ELA	6	104	91	-13
Grade 8 Math	6	91	92	+1

 

Observation #12:  Performance of Current and Former SURR Schools in Relation to Number of Students Tested   Finding:  In general, schools with enrollments of less than 50 performed better than did schools with larger enrollments.   In grades 4 and 8 ELA and math, as a group schools that tested fewer than 50 students had consistently stronger results than those that tested between 50 and 99 students. In turn, with the exception of grade 4 ELA, schools that tested between 50 and 99 students performed better than those with 100 or more students.  This is consistent with the thesis that it is easier to turn around small schools than large ones.  However, the data should be treated with some caution as a previous study in 2002 found that the group of schools that had between 50 and 99 students was generally the highest performing ones, suggesting that the data for small schools is variable from year to year.

 

 

Table 12

Performance of Current and Former SURR Schools

on School Accountability Performance Index (SPI)

2003 Test Administration

By Size of Tested Population

 

Size of Tested Population	ELA 4	Math 4	ELA 8	Math 8
Less than 50	137	163	106	114
50-99	121	146	101	105
100+	123	143	98	82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observation #13:  Performance of Current and Former SURR High Schools   Finding:  The new Regents graduation requirements present challenges to both current and former SURR schools. -          From 1989 to 2002, high school accountability has moved from a system based on the passing or failing rate on RCTs, to the percentage of students that have passed RCTs by the end of grade 11, to a system based on the percentage of students who have met graduation assessment requirements within four years of entry into ninth grade.  In 2003, the system changed again to reflect a high school performance index which set as it goal students in a cohort achieving a score of 65 or higher on a Regents exam within four years of entry into grade 9. -          As the graduation assessment requirement has changed to one based upon passage of Regents exams, many current and former SURR schools have struggled to meet standards. -          As with elementary and middle schools, former SURR schools outperform current SURR schools but have results significantly below those of the average performance of schools statewide. -          The math Regents graduation requirement has been a particular challenge for former SURR high schools.  One-third of former SURR high schools were farthest from State standards last year on this indicator.  Many former SURR schools, which had become successful at having students meet RCT standards, are finding it much more difficult to prepare students to meet the Regents math graduation requirements.

 

Table 13A

Performance of Current and Former SURR High Schools

1999 ELA and Math Cohorts

 

	Number of Schools	Number of Students in Cohort	ELA Performance Index	Math Performance Index
Former SURR	18	5,373	111	97
Current SURR	17	3,217	88	74

Former SURR does not include schools closed June 2003.

 

Table 13B

Percent of Former SURR High Schools

Farthest from State Standards

1997 ELA and Math Cohorts

	Number of Schools	ELA: Percent Farthest from State Standards	Math: Percent Farthest from State Standards
Former SURR	24	8%	33%

Former SURR does not include schools closed June 2003.

 

 

Observation #14:  Performance of Disaggregated Student Populations in Current and Former SURR Elementary and Middle Schools   Finding:  There are significant variations in the performance of disaggregated groups in current and former SURR schools. -          In the aggregate, performance of students in current SURR schools exceeds the No Child Left Behind Annual Measurable Objective (AMO) for grade 4 math and almost meets the AMO for grade 8 math.  Limited English proficient (LEP) students and students with disabilities perform substantially less well than do other disaggregated groups. -          In the aggregate, performance of students in former SURR schools exceeds the AMO on all elementary and middle-level criteria except grade 8 ELA.  In addition, White and Asian students as a group exceed the AMO on all four elementary and middle-level criteria, Black and low-income students exceed the criteria in all areas except grade 8 ELA, and Hispanic students exceed the grades 4 and 8 math AMOs. However, limited English proficient students and students with disabilities as a group exceed none of the AMOs.

 

 

Table 14A

Performance of Current SURR Schools

on School Accountability Performance Index (SPI)

2003 Test Administrations

By NCLB Disaggregated Group

 

Group	# Tested	ELA 4	Math 4	ELA 8	Math 8
Asian	210	127	156	102	105
Black	6,728	113	138	93	75
Hispanic	4,987	111	130	96	79
Native American	40	129	157	111	75
White	362	110	141	89	88
Low-Income	6,982	111	140	89	77
LEP	1,507	76	84	73	43
SWD*	2,214	62	85	48	39
Total	12,237	110	137	95	76

*Students with Disabilities

Table 14B

Performance of Former SURR Schools

on School Accountability Performance Index (SPI)

2003 Test Administration

By NCLB Disaggregated Group

 

Group	# Tested	ELA 4	Math 4	ELA 8	Math 8
Asian	296	134	163	134	145
Black	6,686	129	148	103	105
Hispanic	7,299	121	149	99	102
Native American	89	113	130	109	124
White	479	136	143	116	107
Low-Income	7,289	132	147	103	105
LEP	1,839	88	109	80	57
SWD*	2,127	74	102	46	38
Total	14,851	126	147	104	101

*Students with Disabilities

 

Note: The Annual Measurable Objectives for the 2002-03 school year are:

ELA 4:  123

Math 4: 136

ELA 8:  107

Math 8:  81

 

Under NCLB, schools are expected to have all disaggregated groups perform at or above these levels or to show at least 10 percent improvement between baseline performance and the goal of a performance index of 200.

 

 

III.        Successes and Challenges

 

            As the SURR process enters its 15th year, it is clear that thousands of students have been the beneficiaries of improvement in academic performance among schools in the State that had been among the lowest performing.  Factors that have contributed to these improvements include:

 

-          Registration review visits to newly identified schools by outside experts that result in a registration review report whose findings become the basis for school improvement and corrective action plans.

-          The assignment of an SED liaison to each SURR school to coordinate the provision of services to the school and to monitor implementation of improvement plans.

-          The linkage of SURR schools to a network of technical assistance providers through the Regional School Support Centers.

-          The direct provision of professional development to SURR schools through Department-sponsored Reading and Math Institutes, Leadership Institutes and the assignment of curriculum specialists to selected SURR schools.

-          The direction of grant funds to SURR schools to support efforts such as Universal Pre-k, early grade reduced class size, extended day and learning technology programs.

-          The adoption by SURR schools of researched-based models of excellence, particularly in the elementary schools.

-          The assignment of certified staff to schools that have been identified as SURR schools.

-          The development of a cadre of parent leaders who can actively participate in the improvement process in their schools and who can train other parents in how to help their children in school.

-          The pro-active steps taken by school districts to “pre-identify” low-performing schools and to take actions to close or restructure these schools before they can be identified as SURR schools.

-          The redirection of resources by school districts to support effective implementation of improvement plans in SURR schools.

 

An additional strength of the SURR process has been the willingness of the Department to constantly adjust and modify the process to reflect lessons learned and changes in the educational environment.  Areas where there appear to be opportunities for improvement in the process include:

 

-          Accelerating the process of identification of SURR schools.  Identification of SURR schools typically occurs at the beginning of the calendar year.  As the Department completes the process of establishing its No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability database for all schools and implementing the individual student data record system, the Department hopes that decisions about SURR schools can occur near the beginning of the school year.

-          Incorporating all public schools into the SURR process.  Schools that serve exclusively students with disabilities, small schools, and schools that do not participate in State assessments because of their grade configuration present special challenges in terms of making decisions regarding the effectiveness of the educational program at the school. As it has done with alternative high schools, the Department will continue its efforts to develop an appropriate mechanism to make determinations regarding which of these types of schools warrant designation as SURR schools.

-          Strengthening the process for redesigning and closing SURR middle and high schools.  While the SURR redesign process has been an overwhelming success at the elementary school level, too many SURR middle and high schools that have redesigned and too many new middle and high schools that have opened to replaced closed SURR schools are not showing adequate levels of student performance.

-          Expanding on-line professional development opportunities for teachers in SURR schools, a mechanism that has been successfully piloted under the State’s Reading Excellence Act grant.

-          Moving as appropriate from research-based models of excellence focused on whole school reform to the scientifically-based research curriculum models required by the No Child Left Behind.

-          Integrating further the SURR process with No Child Left Behind accountability requirements.  The Department had been successful in creating a nearly seamless integration of SURR into the accountability system required by the previous reauthorization of Title I, the Improving America’s School Act.  The accountability requirements of NCLB are more prescriptive and, therefore, require some adjustments in the SURR process to ensure that the programs continue to act in synergy, particularly in terms of performance targets, timelines and planning requirements.

-          Maintaining State and local commitment to the SURR process.  Under NCLB, it is highly likely that in the coming years there will be a large increase in the number of schools and districts identified for improvement.  This increase in the number of schools and districts will place new demands on those who have played key roles in supporting improvement efforts in SURR schools. It is critical that schools that are identified as SURR schools because they are the very lowest performing schools in the State continue to receive the high intensity support and assistance they need to turn around academic performance.

 

These observations underscore that, while the registration review process has had a positive effect on student results in SURR schools, much more effort will be required to ensure that all students in these schools will be successfully prepared to meet the new State learning standards and higher graduation requirements.  The SURR process does make most schools better, but, by itself, it generally cannot make such schools good.  For that reason, it is critical that as the Department pursues its School-by-School Support Plan for SURR schools, it must also aggressively implement its Closing the Gap Strategy so as move the entire educational enterprise in our districts with the lowest needs and capacities to a higher level.  It is only through this dual focus, both on reform at the individual school level and system-wide capacity building, that SURR schools will be able to give their students an equal opportunity to meet State standards.