President's Perspective
One step forward, two steps back
Nov 15, 2007 3:20 PM
Randi Weingarten, President
New Yorkers deserve fair, clear and accurate assessments of our public schools and the progress of our students. The Department of Education took a step in that direction earlier this month when it released its school Progress Reports, but remember the old adage — one step forward, two steps back.
I was not at all surprised to discover that schools plagued by heavy-handed principals who have been unwilling to listen to their educators — such as the Acorn HS for Social Justice and Bayard Rustin HS for Humanities — received failing grades. These schools and others have been on our radar screen for some time. Worse, our criticism of their inept administrative practices has not been heeded. Their Fs are the inevitable result of what happens when principals — in tough situations — try to rule with iron fists instead of managing with open minds. Nor was it shocking that schools where principals and staff work together, and which have a strong amount of support, did well. Finally, some myths — like all small schools are better than all big schools — were busted by the “data.”
So all that made sense, but there is something wrong with the design of an accountability system when plenty of schools that, by every other measure, had solid, established track records, were stigmatized by low grades.
Teachers and parents have been asking how exceptionally successful schools — such as PS 231 in Park Slope, PS 6 on the Upper East Side and PS 234 in Tribeca — got Bs.
Even more troubling: PS 35 in Staten Island — a school nationally recognized for its high performance — received an F. Despite the economic hardships faced by many of the families whose children attend the school (more than half its students, for example, are eligible for free lunches), PS 35’s 4th-grade reading scores have come in about 20 percentage points above other Staten Island schools since 2002. It received the highest grade on its school-quality review and has made yearly progress in all areas under the federal No Child Left Behind Act. It is beloved and sought after by parents and educators alike. So how did it “earn” an F?
Even though 98 percent of its kids meet math standards, its problem was a drop in its reading scores. While 87 percent of its students met state standards (as measured on standardized reading test scores) last year, this number was down from 93 percent the year before. Yes, the scores dropped, but this is still a high-performing school and it clearly doesn’t deserve an F.
Bard College President Leon Botstein last week described another problem with simply grading schools A to F. The college is partnered with a high school, Bard HS Early College. Graduates of this high-performing “academy” earn not only a high school diploma but also two years worth of college credits. The school, viewed by many as a gem of the system, received a C because the progress reports don’t give credit for college level courses. The Department of Education is reviewing the grade and those of a number of other schools after principals questioned the preliminary marks. (Recently, the DOE upgraded Brooklyn Tech — another of the system’s jewels — from a C to a B.)
Botstein’s complaint, echoed by many of our high school colleagues, is that one grade can’t really measure the diversity and rigor of high school education offerings or the actual progress students achieve.
Don’t get me wrong: Accountability is important, but shouldn’t we be building upon and fixing the New York State and federal NCLB accountability systems rather than inventing a totally new one — indeed, one that may work totally differently from the other two? In the week that’s passed since the release of the progress reports, I’ve been thinking a lot again about the purpose of accountability. Is it an end unto itself, or is it a measuring rod for the system and its schools?
Any school system’s mission is two-fold — nurture the schools that work, focus like a laser on those that don’t. Unfortunately, despite good intent, the school Progress Reports fall short on both counts.
What beyond the stigma of a poor or failing grade will be the school system’s responsibility to the schools that are not doing well and the children who attend them? In Florida, for example (where this grading system was invented), Miami groups its weakest schools into a School Improvement Zone and directs huge amounts of resources and expertise toward them. Unfortunately, New York City abolished a similar program — called the Chancellor’s District, under then-Chancellor Rudy Crew — years ago.
Just as troubling are the potential consequences to those schools that did not fixate on teaching to the test. For grades K-8, many schools have done well over a period of years by focusing on English and math, but not to the exclusion of spending time on art, music and other subjects. Because 55 percent of the grade is based on “progress,” those quality schools received grades of B or C instead of an A. That doesn’t seem fair.
Accountability must extend throughout the system and can’t entirely rest on the shoulders of teachers and principals. That is why the union’s Delegate Assembly recently approved a resolution calling on the DOE to not only provide support and resources to schools that receive poor grades but also to explore alternative accountability measures that would provide a fairer, more transparent and more accurate assessment of each school. For example, as good as the inclusion of the Learning Environment Surveys was, there are other legitimate and reliable measures of student work — 85 percent of the grade ought not to be based on standardized test scores.
The resolution goes on to note that the UFT will support any school community that believes its score on the progress reports was not a fair or accurate reflection of the school’s hard work and achievement. That support could involve appeals, public demonstrations and other actions.
Taking responsibility and being accountable are, and have always been, critical for any successful school or school system. But a system where a test score can change a ranking from an A to a C because three fewer students ended up at Level 4 this year than at the same time last year is not a credible one — and may do more damage than good.
Before taking the drastic step of closing a school, everyone with a stake in it should make sure that we’ve worked together to do everything in our collective power to make it work. And that includes doing everything required by federal and state laws, not taking any short cuts. If the DOE wants to insist on real accountability — and it should — it must carry out its responsibilities by giving schools the resources and time they need to improve, even taking the difficult step of removing leaders when the “data” show that to be necessary.
As responsible adults, we always try to teach children to be clear, accurate, responsible and fair. That’s accountability at its best. The DOE would be wise to heed that lesson and do the same.
