VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS! VOUCHERS!
New York City Will Limit Chance to Leave Failing Schools
By ELISSA GOOTMAN
Published: July 17, 2004
New York City, which last year allowed every child who wished to transfer out of a failing school to do so, will drastically reduce the number of students allowed to move this year, education officials said yesterday.
The decision comes after a year in which some principals complained that an influx of students transferring under a new federal law, No Child Left Behind, had overcrowded and undermined the city's more successful schools and run up millions of dollars in busing and other expenses.
Advertisement
Last year, city officials said, more than 7,000 students transferred to better schools. Next year, however, the city will probably allow fewer than 1,000 transfers, with priority going to poor children with low test scores.
The schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, said in a statement yesterday that "this year's plan to implement the transfer provisions of No Child Left Behind will provide increased educational opportunities for students in struggling schools, while ensuring that the transfer process does not destabilize other schools within the system.''
During the 2003-4 school year, New York City went further than other major cities in trying to adhere to the transfer provision of the federal law. Chicago, for example, offered transfers to 1,100 of 19,000 eligible students.
Some critics said early on that New York City risked harming its better schools in allowing so many students in them.
Next year, children who are allowed to transfer will most likely switch schools after school has begun, some as late as October. That is because the city is waiting for a new list of failing schools, which state officials said they expected to release in late August. Last year, most students had already transferred by the time the state released its latest list, based on 2002-3 test scores. That list classified as failing 43 additional schools that receive federal poverty money and therefore fall under the transfer provision of the law. The list brought the total number of failing schools in the city to 497, or more than 40 percent. Because the federal government judges schools not only on how they fare overall but also on the performance of different segments of the school population, the list of failing schools includes schools with good reputations.
Reaction to the department's new policy, which is expected to be discussed next week with officials from the school system's 10 regions, was mixed among education advocates and public officials. Some experts said all children should be allowed to transfer from failing schools. But others lauded the new limits, saying that New York City had suffered for its decision allowing so many transfers. The city's Department of Education said that last year it spent close to $20 million on transportation, labor and other costs of allowing children to transfer from failing schools.
"Parental choice in the abstract sounds great, but in the practical application if your child ends up in a school that is now grossly overcrowded, that's not so great for the child either," said Assemblyman Steven Sanders, a Manhattan Democrat who is chairman of the Education Committee.
Michele Cahill, Mr. Klein's senior counselor for education policy, acknowledged that fulfilling the transfer policy this year was "a challenge," and that problems were created "in some particular schools."
"We are trying to be sure that there really are available seats when we offer a transfer," Ms. Cahill said. "We're happy with how it went this year in many ways. We are working to improve the schools and improve how the specifics of this kind of implementation will go next year."
Some principals said part of the problem was that officials used outdated numbers to determine if they had extra room in their schools for new students.
"They never asked, they just simply sent children based on erroneous information," said Jill S. Levy, president of the city principals' union. "Our understanding is that some schools were impacted rather heavily." She added that "principals are held accountable for students' scores, but they haven't had these children long enough to really make an impact."
< continues >
nytimes.com |
