Repeatedly, schools have pointed out problems with the data used in the closure recommendations. It appears that either the CAC selectively picked data, choosing what best supported their decisions, or they had faulty data, or both.
The Graham Hill closure recommendation is a perfect example. The CAC report states that: "...students in the regular programs at Graham Hill fared less well than students in surrounding regular programs." For supporting data, they used the 2005 Reading WASL scores only.
An analysis of two years of WASL Reading, Writing & Math scores, however, shows a very different picture. The Graham Hill Regular program (with the high-performing Montessori students separated out), ranks 9th out of 17 programs in the south and southeast. Two neighborhood schools (Muir and Wing Luke) with the high-performing Spectrum students included, rank 6th and 7th, just a little higher than the Graham Hill Regular program. And eight programs, including those with the most capacity to accept additional students, rank lower than Graham Hill's Regular program. See www.savegrahamhill.org for details.
Using two years of data for all WASL topics completely undermines the CAC conclusion for Graham Hill. How many other closure recommendations rest on equally faulty data?