Follow up: Progress, not proficiency
 |
Before the city released the 2008-2009 school progress reports Wednesday, the New York Post braced us for shockingly high results. But after the release, the Post had to update its statistics — quite a bit. A whopping 97% of the city’s elementary and middle schools received As and Bs, even higher than the 85% first reported. Just 27 schools citywide received Cs, Ds, or Fs.
Chancellor Klein wants to clarify what the good grades mean, according to The New York Times. To be sure, he says, they do not indicate that schools are stellar. Rather, the grades indicate that schools met their “progress target.” And the grading system mainly defines progress by how much student test scores improve from one year to the next.
But with state tests’ soaring scores already under fire, should we put any stock in a grading system guided by those scores? We’re not the first to ask that question.
Progress reports have sparked criticism since their 2007 debut. Last year’s reports attracted a string of complaints, especially in light of a popular Brooklyn Heights school’s failing grade.
And now, with Klein making a point to stress that a school acing its progress report does not indicate that it’s an overall success, the report seems to defeat the purpose of using letter grades to let parents know the quality of their child’s school — particularly since most of the city’s “persistently dangerous schools” received top marks, too.
And so, Klein continues to defend the system, principals are split on the merit of progress reports, and critics clamor on.
Even the Department of Education seems conflicted. On Wednesday, when asked if the grading system, which gave nearly all schools top marks, was flawed, the Times quoted Klein saying, “If you’re asking whether I would rather see less A’s,” he said, “the answer is no.” But today the Times reports that the grading system will be readjusted for next year. According to DOE accountability chief Shael Polakow-Suransky, the city plans to “raise the bar” so that there will be a wider distribution of grades.
What do you think? Do you find the progress reports to be clear or counter-intuitive?
UPDATE 9/9: Diane Ravitch, well-known NYU education historian, calls progress reports “bogus” in a Daily News op-ed today.
Subscribe to 
Through the looking glass at Tweed (where all who gaze upon it are the fairest of them all), the grades makes sense. To anyone else, the system is totally confusing since the grades stand for anything they want them to mean and are a perfect ever-changing picture of whatever it is.
Comment by David C. Bloomfield — September 4, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
The progress reports have skewed the education progess to teaching to the lowest common denominator. By meaasuring progress, a school can achieve an “A” rating by going from 20% passing to 50% passing. An improvement, yes, but let’s remember that 50% will still be failing. Thus even with an “A” rating it is still a failing school. Schools should be judged on what percentage of kids get the top level on tests, a 4. At least 75% of kids should get a 4 in order to get an A. That way schools would teach to the highest level and everybody would be raised up.
Comment by parent — September 4, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Parent–The progress reports are based on three scores: School environment, student performance, and student progress.
If you want to know how well students perform, look just at that score (the second row of the Progress Reports)–you’ll find that many schools with an overall A rating have a B, C or D on student performance because their performance scores (primarily test scores) are low. However, because this is a “Progress Report,” more weight (60%, with 25% for performance and 15% for school environment) is given to “progress” than “performance” or “environment,” and appropriately so.
Anyone who wants more information on pure performance can look here http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/DOEData/AnnualSchoolReports/default.htm, although the information is dated. Anyone who wants more information pure environment can look here http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/SchoolReports/Surveys/find, which is the basis for most of the “School Environment” Score.
If you want more information on how the Progress Report scores are calculated, see here http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DF48B29F-4672-4D16-BEEA-0C7E8FC5CBD5/65798/EducatorGuide_EMS_0804091.pdf.
Accordingly, if one views “progress” as mostly measurable by an improvement in “performance” as measured by the state and city (i.e., test scores), then the Progress Reports paint a pretty good picture. Theoretically, all schools could get an A+, without any grade inflation occurring, so long as they met their progress goals.
Comment by Comment Poster — September 4, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Yup, our school with 100% passing has the same grade as schools with 50% passing because they improved. How does that make any sense?
Comment by Jennifer M — September 7, 2009 @ 9:36 am
Two schools can have the same grade on a progress report when they have different performance percentages because the report is a “Progress Report.” Measuring progress and performance are different things.
Comment by Comment Poster — September 7, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Comment Poster–yes, I know, but it’s not helpful to people trying to compare schools. Even in terms of progress, a school with a consistently 100% pass rate can move on to focus on improving their curriculum/education in other ways. A school with 50% is still going to be totally test-oriented if they hope to continue with “progress.” Readers of the reports should be able to, in some simple way, differentiate between the two.
The whole thing is just another Bloomberg way of hiding what’s really going on and making it look like every school is a great school–and that it’s all his doing.
Comment by Jennifer M — September 8, 2009 @ 8:20 am
Jennifer M–No question that politics is involved in determining what information is measured and how it’s presented–think by definition that’s going to happen, since different people will value different things, and the differences will be attributed to “politics”–but think in general one has to appreciate Bloomberg’s administration to measure and present information in the first place. If you don’t measure in the first place, it’s hard to tell whether you’re doing well….
If you prefer your information subject to state as opposed to local politics, you can look at the Accountability and Overview Reports and Comprehensive Information Reports here https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb/AllSchool.do?year=2008. I don’t know how those scores are incoporated into the “Student Performance” line item in the Progress Reports, if they are at all or if that line item is based on NYC DoE information. In any case, if you’re interested in the DoE’s views on “Student Performance,” it’s pretty easy to compare that line item on the Progress Reports of the schools that you may be interested in.
Comment by Comment Poster — September 8, 2009 @ 11:03 am
And, and somebody correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t it the case the those reports were done by a British firm and starting this year will be done by DOE staff? Or did this already happen? Or, am I thinking of something else?
Comment by Greg Co — September 8, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
#7: You’re thinking of the “Quality Reviews”. They are done by educators (some from Britain) and were part of the same initiative as the Progress Reports and the “Learning Environment Surveys.” All these reports are accessible on the statistics page for each school on the DOE’s website. Insideschools links to these pages on each school profile page. Click on “More school data” for the link.
Comment by Insideschools — September 8, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
I think Mr. Klein’s claims of accountability are a sham. I have written to him four times since last Spring about an incident regarding my daughter. I sent registered mail, e-mail’s, documentation, and still no response. Parents have no input it is a great p.r. job, but “accountability” is meaningless.
Comment by Margaret McDermott — September 9, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
If we had the facts, the discussion would take a different tone. Now that Diane Ravitch has laid out the facts in her September 9 column (see above), we can talk about what really matters. The state test scores are meaningless to educators, because they are based on faulty assumptions about comparing test scores from year to year, as well as the questions being predictable.. Parents should not rely on them. They should ask for their child’s score in social studies and science. These tests are given in fourth and eighth grades. Just pester the State Ed. Department. Then you will have some idea if your child has some background knowledge and literacy skills to have a good chance of succeeding in high school science and social studies classes. The science Regents exams are hard, and the scores are not subject to manipulation,. The two social studies exams are also hard. The Algebra exam score is meaningless. This year, one had to earn 30 points out of 87 to score 65%. You can do the real math here.
NOTE: The Regents are considering lowering the graduation standards (again). See one sentence on their June 22 press release.
We’re still in a crisis. Educational progress is very hard to measure, and just as hard to see when you compare one cohort of students to the next.
Parents need to rally to do what’s right by their children.
The latest progress report grades are also meaningless. Don’t pay any attention to them.
Comment by Danny Simon — September 11, 2009 @ 12:45 pm