Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein have recently designed a complete overhaul of the New York City school system.
Instead of the current 10 regions, schools will be reorganized back into 32 districts, just four years after Bloomberg abandoned these 32 districts in favor of regions. Additionally, each school will have to choose one of three new support systems. A part of the plan already being instituted is the new accountability system. To complete the new plan, a new process has been created to reform the budget system.
While this reorganization will cause widespread change, the effects of the plan are still unclear, as it does not state what will happen in the classroom, only detailing organizational changes. This new plan is extremely complicated, but an outline of the basics follows.
The new budget system, Fair Student Funding (FSF), is based on funding per student, rather than per school. As can be inferred by the name, the Department of Education (DOE) believes it to be a fairer method of distributing funds. Under FSF, a certain amount of money is allocated for the typical student, with additional funds added based on specific special needs. Also, each school receives a Children First Supplemental Allocation consisting of $85,000 plus $120 per student.
Under the previous system, schools were given money based on the number of teachers and other personnel needed, plus funds from a variety of sources for a number of programs. For Stuyvesant, this translates to an additional $800,000 per year, but also an unknown number of new costs.
The three new support systems being offered allow schools to shop around for the best fit. Each option offers different benefits, but they come with significant drawbacks as well. Each school will have to pay for their new service, with costs ranging from about $30,000 to $145,000, depending on the type of network joined.
The first option, Empowerment, gives principals more money and more power, but increases their accountability for poor performance (more so than the other options). The second option, an external Partnership Support Organization, is based on the idea that outside organizations will bring fresh eyes and ideas to the school system. The organizations would offer teachers and principals support.
The final option is the one Stuyvesant is likely to choose, an internal (to the DOE) Learning Support Organization (LSO). Within the LSO system, there are four subsystems, each run by a former regional superintendent, which features its own specialization.
The problem many have with these three options is that schools will become more responsible for paying for services, especially in an Empowerment school. Another concern is that schools will be forced to pay for the privilege of joining these support systems, but may not need what they’re paying for.
To encourage schools to do well and to make information more accessible, the DOE has created a new school accountability policy. Schools will now receive a letter grade, A through F, and be rewarded or punished accordingly, presumably by financial means.
These grades are based on three factors: student environment, performance and progress. Student environment is based on the result of surveys given to parents, teachers, and students, as well as attendance. Performance is based on state test scores and graduation rates. Progress is how much students improve over the year.
There are obvious problems with this new system. Schools with students who consistently perform well, like Stuyvesant, may have difficulty showing progress in students’ test scores. The DOE responds to that issue on their Web site: “Even students within Level 4 [out of 4] can progress from the just above proficient to highly advanced.”
In addition to the grades, schools are also given a quality review, which seems to be separate from a school’s progress report. The quality review consists of “experienced educators” spending two to three days in each school to assess how well the school is doing.
During the 06-07 school year, the DOE hired Cambridge Education, a British company which provides “expert education services” to evaluate the city’s schools. Stuyvesant received a “proficient” score, despite its excellent attendance, test scores and graduation rate. Proficient is a middle ranking, between “well-developed” and “undeveloped.” Next year, the DOE plans to implement a five-point rating scale for their reviews.
Yet another new implementation is the new periodic assessments. These are another set of tests that will be taken every few months to measure students’ progress. While they are for diagnostic purposes only, they will have an effect on the school’s performance, and thus the budget. As such, critics worry that these tests will take time out of classes and cause teachers to teach for these assessments rather than the curriculum. Additionally, adding yet another set of tests to already overworked students will succeed only in adding to their stress.
For the final part of the accountability policy, over the next year the DOE is rolling out the Achievement Reporting and Innovation System (ARIS). ARIS allows teachers, principals and eventually parents to have full access to student information. This includes state test scores, in-class assignments and “progress from kindergarten through the 12th grade.”
A large part of the problem with this overhaul is the lack of information. The new system will be instituted July 1 of this year, yet very little is known about the changes that will take place, and the DOE has not asked for the input of parents or students.
The obvious question to ask is, how will this affect me, the student? Unfortunately, at this point there is no way of knowing until the changes are actually put into place.
And the other obvious question: Will this work? The new system results in more money for Stuyvesant, but it is unclear how much will have to be spent for things that were until recently provided for free, and it is unknown whether this complex accountability system will really encourage schools. We’ll have to wait and see.
