Are Our Students Learning? Depends on Whom You Ask by James Vacca
September 12th, 2008
In the weeks and months ahead, New York City will experience one of the most heated debates about the future of our schools we’ve seen in years. But as educators, parents and government officials set out to grade the city’s school system under mayoral control, we shouldn’t be surprised if all the numbers don’t add up.
That’s because despite the steady stream of test score announcements and progress reports we’ve seen since the Department of Education (DoE) was created in 2002, there has been no independent entity analyzing that data and presenting an impartial picture of how our schools are performing, both individually and as a whole.
The problem is hardly academic—at stake is the central question of whether our children are receiving a better education. Take test scores: in 2007, the DoE touted fourth- and eighth-grade state math scores that showed a 28-percent improvement over 2003 scores. Yet federal National Association of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores, considered by many to be the most reliable indicator of progress, showed only mild upticks in fourth-grade scores and no gain for eighth-graders.
That’s not to say math instruction hasn’t improved since 2003—it’s just to say that without an independent monitor making sense of this discrepancy, taking the DoE’s claim at face value is an act of faith.
Confusion also exists on an individual-school basis, as the DoE has begun releasing progress reports for its schools, from the “quality reviews” conducted by an outside consulting firm to the controversial letter-graded report cards. Unfortunately, the two measures aren’t always in synch. According to The New York Times, of the 52 schools graded “F” this year, more than half had been deemed “proficient” just months earlier in their quality reviews, while seven were dubbed “well-developed”—the highest ranking.
What a surprise for parents who heeded the quality reviews only to later learn that they had sent their children to failing schools. And for principals whose brief celebrations gave way to the fear of losing their jobs.
Proponents of New York’s current system will say we already have an independent analytical body in the recently formed Research Alliance for New York City Schools, a partnership of business leaders and education experts modeled off the respected Consortium on Chicago School Research.
The problem is that while many talented men and women sit on the Alliance’s board, nearly all of them are stakeholders in the school system, from the DoE’s chancellor to the teachers union president, meaning that all have an interest in making that system look good. That’s hardly impartiality.
Accountability was the watchword when the State Legislature authorized mayoral control in 2002. Proponents argued that once the mayor took responsibility for the school system, parents—and voters—would finally have someone to blame, or praise, for the state of our schools. But true accountability requires reliable data, and any system where the person being judged controls and presents the evidence is destined to stir doubts.
Ultimately, the Legislature will have final say over whether to renew mayoral control, which is due to expire next June. But before my colleagues in Albany get bogged down in the finer points of centralization vs. local control, of checks and balances and parental input, they should pay special attention to the need for an independent monitor capable of dispassionately analyzing data, thoroughly critiquing policies and providing an apolitical picture of the state of education in our city.
Whether those responsibilities fall to a new group akin to the Chicago Consortium, or to an existing body like the city’s already-respected Independent Budget Office, the lesson of the past six years is clear: until we can start trusting the data, we’ll never really know how well this current system is working—and, more importantly, we’ll never know if our children are getting the top-tier education they deserve.
And after all, isn’t that why we’re having this discussion in the first place?
That’s because despite the steady stream of test score announcements and progress reports we’ve seen since the Department of Education (DoE) was created in 2002, there has been no independent entity analyzing that data and presenting an impartial picture of how our schools are performing, both individually and as a whole.
The problem is hardly academic—at stake is the central question of whether our children are receiving a better education. Take test scores: in 2007, the DoE touted fourth- and eighth-grade state math scores that showed a 28-percent improvement over 2003 scores. Yet federal National Association of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores, considered by many to be the most reliable indicator of progress, showed only mild upticks in fourth-grade scores and no gain for eighth-graders.
That’s not to say math instruction hasn’t improved since 2003—it’s just to say that without an independent monitor making sense of this discrepancy, taking the DoE’s claim at face value is an act of faith.
Confusion also exists on an individual-school basis, as the DoE has begun releasing progress reports for its schools, from the “quality reviews” conducted by an outside consulting firm to the controversial letter-graded report cards. Unfortunately, the two measures aren’t always in synch. According to The New York Times, of the 52 schools graded “F” this year, more than half had been deemed “proficient” just months earlier in their quality reviews, while seven were dubbed “well-developed”—the highest ranking.
What a surprise for parents who heeded the quality reviews only to later learn that they had sent their children to failing schools. And for principals whose brief celebrations gave way to the fear of losing their jobs.
Proponents of New York’s current system will say we already have an independent analytical body in the recently formed Research Alliance for New York City Schools, a partnership of business leaders and education experts modeled off the respected Consortium on Chicago School Research.
The problem is that while many talented men and women sit on the Alliance’s board, nearly all of them are stakeholders in the school system, from the DoE’s chancellor to the teachers union president, meaning that all have an interest in making that system look good. That’s hardly impartiality.
Accountability was the watchword when the State Legislature authorized mayoral control in 2002. Proponents argued that once the mayor took responsibility for the school system, parents—and voters—would finally have someone to blame, or praise, for the state of our schools. But true accountability requires reliable data, and any system where the person being judged controls and presents the evidence is destined to stir doubts.
Ultimately, the Legislature will have final say over whether to renew mayoral control, which is due to expire next June. But before my colleagues in Albany get bogged down in the finer points of centralization vs. local control, of checks and balances and parental input, they should pay special attention to the need for an independent monitor capable of dispassionately analyzing data, thoroughly critiquing policies and providing an apolitical picture of the state of education in our city.
Whether those responsibilities fall to a new group akin to the Chicago Consortium, or to an existing body like the city’s already-respected Independent Budget Office, the lesson of the past six years is clear: until we can start trusting the data, we’ll never really know how well this current system is working—and, more importantly, we’ll never know if our children are getting the top-tier education they deserve.
And after all, isn’t that why we’re having this discussion in the first place?
