Fewer dangerous city schools

Posted by helen at 8:54 AM

The good news, from the DOE and the State, is that crime in the city's schools is on the wane: Of 25 city schools described as persistently dangerous by the State last year, 15 were removed from the list in light of improved safety and lower crime. The downside is that 11 city schools remain on the danger list. New York City also added more schools (six) to the state's list than any other area of the state.

In counterpoint, Comptroller William Thomson asserts that as many as one in five violent/criminal/safety incidents that occur in schools go improperly or incompletely reported. City leaders hope that a proposed amendment to the City Charter will improve school security by directing complaints of police misconduct to the Civilian Complaint Review Board (not the current norm) and requiring regular reporting on school violence to the DOE and NYPD.


In an article today, the Post documents a number of District 75 schools on the state's list -- D 75 schools enroll special need students with the most acute needs. Reports of persistent violence in D 75 schools, where staff ratios are far smaller than mainstream schools, raise difficult questions on all sides. And an AP story from am New York sets New York's improvements against a national canvas, noting without irony that the other 49 states document a total of 21 persistently dangerous schools compared to New York State's 19 (although reporting criteria vary from state to state).


Notably, despite pop-media visions of metal-detectors and box-cutter-wielding teens, "persistently dangerous" schools include elementary and middle schools, too. Under the provisions of NCLB, parents can request safety transfers for students enrolled at "dangerous" schools. But time is short before the start of school; those interested in seeking transfers should contact their school this week to explore the process.

NCLB: Testing the law that sets the tests

Posted by helen at 8:45 AM

A new crack in the NCLB edifice has emerged, as 6 states have won the right to design their own means to achieve federally-mandated landmarks of academic progress. According to Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, up to 10 states will pilot their own achievement and accountability programs; 17 states applied for the program, including New York, which didn't make the short list.

Spellings also bemoaned Congress' decision to yank funds for Reading First, the Bush-endorsed reading program that's shown flat results -- and been linked with dubious business practices by the Education Department's own Inspector General. In a trope that echoes New York testing outcomes, Spellings says state data show the progam is working, while federal review documents no effect at all on reading comprehension.

Does education reform merit attention in the Presidential election? Lots of Americans agree -- to a point. This poll puts education third, behind gas prices and economic concerns, but ahead of health care, homeland security, and the environment (dead last).

Two steps forward,...

Posted by helen at 11:17 AM

Persistent declines in level 4 middle school ELA scores and other hallmarks of flagging achievement from the top tier of New York City's students have prompted many commenters' heartfelt concern about the untoward effects of a test-driven education culture.

The point's not lost on academe -- eduwonkette's post today substantiates what we've heard and seen, as does this study. The flip side is, no matter how dogged, test-linked, or slow, real progress is being made among the lowest-performing sets of kids; many connect the NCLB dots to rising achievement.

If moving under-skilled kids forward is the prime educational target, as Chancellor Klein has asserted multiple times, what is the cost to the city's most-skilled students? Why do these students show poorer test scores? And how can the "two steps forward, one back" pace change to one that moves everyone forward, struggling learners and motivated, prepared, and ambitious kids alike?

G+T and other specialized, enriched programs are only part of the answer. Legions of kids just don't ace the tests, and others aren't offered the opportunity. The challenge, we worry, will outlast the Bloomberg era: While seeking to meet the needs of the least able, how can the city better support its top learners?

The kids who are middle- and high-school students today will quickly become the voters that define the city's agenda. How can we best serve them to learn, and to lead, tomorrow?

NCLB blues: Accountability without across-the-board progress

Posted by helen at 9:34 AM

Parents have long felt that city schools are set up to serve the highest achievers -- via gifted and talented programs and the specialized high schools, for example -- and, particularly in the current Mayoral administration, to analyze and attempt to meet the needs of the city's neediest, lowest-performing students. Thus, an era of high-stakes testing, data-driven accountability, and the basic equation of "progress" with rising scores.

But a large swath of students have been overlooked in the alphabet soup of AYP (annual yearly progress), SURR (schools under Regents review), SINI (schools in need of improvement), and NCLB (No Child Left Behind). As Sam Dillon reported in today's Times, and Eduwonkette put into thoughtful context, we risk losing sight of the kids who are doing well, or well enough. They're not making as much progress as their less-able peers, mainly because the educational target has aimed at proficiency, with less emphasis on pushing the already-proficient to new levels of rigor and achievement.

Clearly, resources are finite, and a large segment of the city's kids need and deserve real attention to the academic basics. But can we afford, as parents and as citizens, to slight the students who are already doing well?