The Quality Review Report for Stuyvesant, prepared by a British education consultant firm in February, gave Stuyvesant only an average grade.
Stuyvesant received an overall grade of “proficient,” the middle verdict on a scale of undeveloped, proficient or welldeveloped.
As part of the New York City Department of Education’s (DOE) Children First initiative, Quality Review Reports have been prepared for all New York City public schools. The DOE is paying almost $20 million to Cambridge Education, a British firm, to observe and review the schools.
Out of 28 categories, Stuyvesant received an average rating in 19 and a poor rating in one.
The scores are based on how well schools use data to improve student performance, whether schools use individualized teaching and learning goals, whether schools create environments conducive to teaching and learning and how schools make adjustments to meet student needs.
On May 8, 2007, the Daily News published an article about the Stuyvesant report titled, “An Average Stuy: Parents, Students Rail as Brit Consultant Calls HS Gem Just OK.” A follow-up article appeared two days later titled, “Klein Tells Stuyvesant HS to Learn from Mediocre Review.”
The first article, by Erin Einhorn, described how the”consultants knocked Stuyvesant for teachers who do little more than lecture to the school’s 3,000 students, and for stressed-out kids who don’t know where to get help.”
According to the article, critics of Stuyvesant suggest that the consultants are revealing problems hidden behind the top test scores of Stuyvesant students.
The Daily News follow-up article reported, “School chancellor Joel Klein called on educators at Stuyvesant High School to step up their work in the wake of an unimpressive review from outside consultants.”
Principal Stanley Teitel did not agree with the report. “I don’t feel that our teachers do little more than lecture,” said Teitel, who had refused to comment for the Daily News articles.
Teitel said that the review reported that “we were proficient, with well developed areas. Certain areas were exemplary.”
Paola De Kock, a Stuyvesant parent, said to the Daily News that the consultants are using “this kind of ‘one size fits all’ approach.”
Some students felt that some of the problems voiced in the report were justified. Student Union President and senior George Zisiadis said, “We don’t need a consultant to come and tell us what’s wrong with us. I think our problems are apparent enough to us. We should be alert on our own. We should focus on the problem, not on if the counsel was useful.”
Senior and School Leadership Team representative, Samantha Reiser, along with five other students, met with the consultant in February. “We were honest with him. We identified what needed to be improved and gave credit where credit was due.”
“We did well academically, but not well in communications and stress,” said Reiser.
Senior and Big Sib Chair Maria Santos was also one of the students who met with the consultant. “The greatness of Stuy comes from the students,” said Santos.
She said, however, the school does have its problems. “The sheer numbers are proof enough that we have problems,” she said. “There are 10 guidance counselors for 3,000 students […] The numbers explain that we can’t reach out.”
Sophomore Shayonna Cato said she thought the consultants were too quick to judge. “As a whole, our school is at a much higher [academic] level than most schools in the city. A first impression of our school doesn’t give you an accurate description of everything we stand for.”
The Quality Review Reports are part of a series DOE initiatives that measure school progress. The reports and other information about Stuyvesant are meant to be available online through the DOE Web site, though the Quality Review Report has not yet been posted.
Contributing to the question of where Stuyvesant can be ranked academically, in the May 28 issue of Newsweek, Stuyvesant was excluded from a list of the top 100 high schools because “so many of their students score well above the average on the SAT and ACT.”