Commentary: Universal Audienried among the better schools in city

THE CHARTER Schools Office is presenting the academic data of the Universal Audenried Charter High School in a vacuum. The work at comprehensive neighborhood high schools is unique, and Audenried can only truly be rated in comparison with the 20 other district-run neighborhood schools and the two other neighborhood renaissance charters up for renewal. Our data place us consistently as one of the top neighborhood schools in the city.

Universal Audenried's 2014-15 Literature Keystone scores rank sixth out of 23 neighborhood schools. Audenried's Keystone scores are trending upward, whereas most neighborhood schools scores are trending downward.

Let's switch the metric to School Progress Reporter (SPR) scores. The SPR is the district's own report card. We rank eighth out of 26 schools in our peer group. The peer group was selected by the district itself and includes a mix of neighborhood, vocational and charter schools. Furthermore, that SPR ranking puts us ahead of one of the high schools being recommended for renewal.

We can also look at the School Performance Profile ratings from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Our school received a score of 44.92; only three district-run neighborhood schools scored higher: George Washington, Edison and Northeast.

We even outperform two citywide admit Career and Technical Education (CTE) Schools, Dobbins and Mastbaum, in our Literature Keystone scores, and our math scores are identical or better. On the 2016 National Occupational Competency Testing Institute (NOCTI) exam for students in CTE programs, we had 56 out of 105 score competent or advanced. Dobbins had 62 out of 106 competent or advanced in 2015. The difference is that these citywide schools ask for students who have "A's, B's, or C's on their report card, no more than 10 absences, and no disciplinary events."

Our school accepts students regardless of their data and performs at the same level. Our performance on the NOCTI should be applauded, given the priority the School District of Philadelphia has given to Career and Technical Education programs.

One of two conclusions can be drawn from the aforementioned data. The first is that Universal Audenried's academic rating and renewal recommendation needs to be changed by the Charter Schools Office, when seen in comparison with its peers. The other is that the School Progress Report, School Performance Profile and Keystone Scores are extremely flawed measuring tools. That, however, calls into question the manner in which the School District evaluates all of its schools.

The conversation of non-renewal would make sense if our data place us at the bottom of our peers; however, our data have us outperforming the majority of our peers time and time again. With that in mind, we ask that the School Reform Commission investigate and take an objective look at the context in which Universal Audenried has been rated academically and renew our charter.

At Universal Audenried, we do the tough work of meeting students where they are, and our data show it. This comprehensive neighborhood school is performing better than the majority under our current leadership, management and parent support.

Allow us to continue that growth.

Blanchard Diavua, principal

Principal, Universal Audenried

Charter High School

Praise for Ronnie

I would like to commend Ronnie Polaneczky on her on-going efforts to highlight issues that affect the disenfranchised in our City like people with disabilities. Her outstanding article capturing the injustice of the less-than-poor Franklin Institute and its high-powered attorneys who just lost their lawsuit against the disabled shows just another way people with disabilities are being discriminated against. She hit the nail on the head - why is the Franklin Institute double charging a person with a disability to attend their facility while their CEO and their lawyers make big bucks?

The American With Disabilities Act guarantees every person with a disability equal access. You and I don't pay double when we go to the Franklin Institute because we are able-bodied and don't need help. So the Franklin Institute thinks because someone needs assistance they should pay twice? Seems a shame that people with disabilities have to sue to get to be treated just like us.

If you or I go to the Franklin Institute, we pay our way - one way not two. Many people with disabilities cannot attend events or activities without help. That assistant is there to assist the person, not as an attendee.

Requiring a person with a disability, who might live below the poverty line, to pay twice - once for himself and the second time for the assistant penalizes them for their disability.

By the way, the person who is the assistant is lucky if he or she makes $8 or $9 an hour. I doubt that the first place they would want to attend if they were not assisting the person would be to go to the Franklin Institute.

I would think more likely they would spend that money to buy food or pay rent for their family, don't you?

Jill Long

Marlton, N.J.