| Printable Version

Standards

Summer 2000 (v4#2)

New Promotion Policy–-Legal Problems?

On September 8 1999, six of the seven members of the Board of Education (Irving Hamer, Jr. dissented) voted for a far-reaching revision of the policy governing promotion. But by then the Board and Chancellor had already put the new policy into effect - illegally - according to Advocates for Children (AFC). First in a demand letter and later in court, AFC called on the Chancellor and Board to rescind the policy that sent thousands of children to summer school this year - and turned the majority into holdovers.

In their August 12, 1999 letter to Chancellor Rudolph Crew, AFC asserted that the Chancellor implemented a new policy without formal Board of Education approval by issuing a Memorandum entitled, "Promotion Standards 3, 6, 8, and 9 (Middle and Intermediate Schools) and Mandatory Summer School Promotion Criteria," issued by Judith Rizzo dated May 18, 1999, to all superintendents and principals.

The letter went on to point out that while A-501–the promotion policy in force since 1994–clearly provided that promotion decisions are based on many factors, the Rizzo memo made standardized test scores a required determinant of promotion decisions. The memo also added required criteria not present in A-501–namely required passing of a standardized test after attending summer school.

Further, the Board’s failure to provide timely and adequate parental notification of possible holdovers (notification by January 31) and its failure to provide remediation services to students who were at risk clearly violated the provisions of A-501.

According to AFC Executive Director Jill Chaifetz, this summer’s holdover students did not receive notice by January 31st. To the contrary, she stated "… as was made clear to us from numerous phone calls our organizations received, many students were notified of the risk of holdover and need to attend summer school just prior to or on the day they were supposed to attend graduation ceremonies. Nor did the students receive ‘customized, enrichment-based instructional support services’ during the school year to enable them to achieve the required promotion criteria."

In addition, the application of the new promotion standards this year required students to comply with standards about which they had no notice. The Memorandum containing the purported new promotion criteria was not issued until May 18, 1999, which meant, according to AFC, that during the entire 1998/99 school year neither students, parents nor teachers had notice that the promotion criteria would be changed for this year.

The new promotion standards also base this year’s promotions, in part, on students’ academic achievement last year, yet no enrichment services have been provided for them since that time. For example, decisions to promote eighth graders are to be based, in part, on their scores on standardized tests taken in the seventh grade. At that time, however, students and parents had no way of knowing that this year’s promotion decision would be based on those test scores.

Finally, AFC maintains that the summer program implemented by the Board to prepare students for retaking the standardized tests in August was clearly inadequate because thousands of students lacked proper physical facilities, textbooks, supplies or other necessities to enable them to learn the material needed to pass the August tests.

Therefore, AFC contends, "…it follows that the holding over of thousands of 3rd, 6th, 8th and 9th grade students who do not pass the tests administered on August 4, 1999, would also be illegal."

The Old Regulation
Chancellor’s Regulation A-501 set forth the criteria for student promotion decisions and rules for parental notification, summer school, student entitlement to remediation services and appeal procedures for grade and placement decisions. Among other things, A-501 clearly provided that decisions about promotion for all grades should generally be made, in favor of promotion:

The majority of students will follow a regular sequence of continuous progress and complete grades 1-9 in nine years. Students who encounter difficulty in mastering basic skills should be promoted to the next grade, but must receive remediation mandated by Commissioner’s Regulations, Part 1 . . . In all cases, retention is to be regarded as the option of last resort. (Emphasis in original)

A-501 further provided that promotion decisions (for grades other than 3rd) should be made based on an assessment of a variety of factors:

The decision to retain a student [in grades 4 and above] should be carefully considered. The decision to retain a student in these grades should be based on a comprehensive assessment of the student’s academic record, including current achievement level, degree of academic deficiency, and a guidance counselor interview. It is strongly recommended that, if the student record indicates the potential to eliminate the deficiency in the next grade, the student be promoted and receive enrichment-based instructional services.

While A-501 required failing 3rd graders to attend the Promoting Success summer program as a condition of promotion, it did not contemplate mandatory testing at the end of the summer session.

Test Scores in Question
As if to underscore concerns about arbitrary decisions that label children unfairly, the Board announced in September that CTB/McGraw-Hill, the publisher of the standardized tests that the city uses, had made a major error in scaling NYC scores to the national norm! Thousands of children were incorrectly stigmatized as failures when they had actually passed the standardized test. Although some of these children may now be promoted, their self-confidence is surely eroded. And if even they are promoted they will have already missed out on the first weeks of their proper grade.

New Promotion Policy
Like A-501, the new promotion policy passed by the Board September 8, 1999, looks at numerous factors to determine whether a child will be held back. Unlike A-501, it specifies citywide grade-by-grade performance standards that the student must meet or be held back. Student promotion will continue to be based on class work and grades, standardized tests and attendance, but now there are cutoff points that will trigger holdover status. Student achievement will be reported in proficiency based scores as opposed to percentile ranks. Specific regulations to implement the policy were still being written as we go to press.

According to Jill Chaifetz, Executive director, AFC continues to be fully supportive of the Board’s interest in raising standards for New York City school children and ensuring that they receive a quality education. But, she said, "questions about the wisdom of high stakes testing remain. AFC will continue to seek redress for this summer’s illegalities and will closely monitor implementation of the new policy."

[ Budget Info | FAQ NYC Students/Schools | State Funding Equity | Smaller Class Sizes | Facilities | Standards | Emergency Campaign Against Vouchers | Historical Facts | Lingo Translations | Best Schools/School Performance ]