A private British consulting firm is publishing reviews of New York City schools this month in the first phase of a $19 million a year accountability initiative Chancellor Joel Klein introduced earlier this year.

The positive tone of the reports, some of which are already posted on the city Department of Education Web site, has led some critics to question their usefulness. Consultants gave Samuel J. Tilden High School — one of the five high schools the education department recently announced it was phasing out because of poor performance — a rating of “proficient.” That is better than “undeveloped” but not as good as “well developed” on the consultant’s three-rung rating system.

“I think it’s interesting to note that the report provided by their own consultants is mostly positive and doesn’t provide them any substantive reason for closing the school,” State Assemblyman Nick Perry, who opposes the closure of Tilden, said. “We’re wasting a lot of money in this system on consultants, and we’re depriving the schools of a lot of resources that could be used in the classroom.”

The firm, Cambridge Education, was hired through a competitive bidding process after completing a privately funded pilot project with 100 schools last year. About 40 consultants at a time, all former principals and school superintendents with at least 15 years of in-school experience, are working under a $6.5 million a year contract to complete quality reviews of each school in the city by the summer. Between 60% and 70% of reviewers are British, although some Americans are currently being trained.

Reviewers spend two days at each school interviewing principals, teachers, parents, and students observing classrooms, then write up a report assessing how the schools use data about their students to improve instruction.

The reports, published online and distributed to school principals, are the first part of a four-pronged accountability initiative that has been billed as a way for parents to have greater access to the Department of Education. This summer, the quality reviews will be coupled with school progress reports, which give schools an “A” through “F” grade primarily based on the academic progress of individual students. Mr. Klein has said the two evaluations will be used to in decisions to replace principals and to close schools.

The Cambridge Education project director in New York, Tim Boyce, said the point of the reviews is to help principals recognize strengths and improve on weaknesses, regardless of whether the schools are performing well or poorly.

“We are not working as direct agents of the DOE … it’s trying to make sure what we give is a totally fair and impartial view of the schools,” he said, adding that the mostly British staff was an asset since they would have no political ties or agenda. “The whole point behind what we’re doing is about school improvement.”

A Department of Education spokesman, Andrew Jacob, said the reviews are a collaborative, supportive process for principals, who do a self-evaluation before the reviewers visit the school. The schools are evaluated in five areas and then rated as “undeveloped,” “proficient,” or “well developed.” About 400 schools have been reviewed, most in Region 6, which covers East New York.

Of the 167 reviews that have been posted on the department’s Web site so far, nine were rated as undeveloped. Eighty, including Tilden, were rated proficient. And 78 were rated well developed.

In Tilden’s case, other factors, such as a graduation rate that has hovered near 40% for several years — something not taken into account in the quality review — sealed the school’s fate, according to Mr. Jacob.

“The improvements cited in the report are a testament to this principal’s leadership,” he said. “But we can’t keep sending new classes of students — many of whom haven’t chosen to be there — to a school with such a long track record of failure.”

The director of the Alliance for Quality Education, Billy Easton, a supporter of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit who has fought for added accountability measures in city schools, said he supports fine-tuning the way schools are assessed, but added that evaluations must be combined with increased resources for struggling schools.

“The question is: what are we doing as a result of evaluating the school?” he said. “Are we simply going to close schools, pat some people on the back and send others out the door? Or are we going to invest in those schools so we’re not leaving those kids behind?