Last fall, the Department of Education (DOE) hired an expensive private education firm, Cambridge Education, to survey New York City’s 1,400-plus public schools as a part of its Quality Review program. The goal was to help New York City schools recognize and work toward eliminating their weaknesses. The firm gave Stuyvesant a middle rating of “proficient.”
Many members of the Stuyvesant community were indignant about the results. Others were stunned that Stuyvesant, a school many consider the crown jewel of New York City public education, is only considered “proficient” by top educational critics.
The report focused mainly on various aspects of Stuyvesant’s academic environment, including the availability of help for students, the quality of teaching staff and its overall educational atmosphere.
While the report did boast some truthful (if shocking) results, it is wise to take many of Cambridge Education’s conclusions with a grain of salt. Claims of the ineffectiveness of Stuyvesant’s tutoring program were far from accurate. Though some sub-par teachers might make it difficult for students to receive the help they need, the school’s tutoring program is innovative and effective, and is available for any student. Both the Big Sib and AIS/ARISTA tutoring prgrams are accessible for students after school and during free periods.
The report also criticized Stuyvesant’s classroom “lecturing” atmosphere, one where students listen to teachers speak rather than actively participate in a class discussion. But this so-called flaw of Stuyvesant’s curriculum is actually a benefit for many students. Since this method prepares students for the college classroom environment. Lecture-based classes require the student to process information and draw conclusions, rather than feed information to students on a silver platter.
Yet there are certain parts of the DOE’s report that can prove to be valuable, especially those concerning teaching. Teaching at Stuyvesant is plagued with various problems, many of which were highlighted by the Cambridge Education report. In many classes, teachers seem to care more about the “good” students than the underdogs. Other teachers, pressured by a detailed and expansive course load, often do not slow down and explain things to the few students who do not catch on. In a highly competitive environment, substandard teaching makes reaching a student’s full potential even more difficult. Teaching is the foundation of education— and without a sturdy foundation, a school will not stand strong. The review also addressed the lack of self-evaluation in many schools, particularly Stuyvesant. The very fact that a hired firm is necessary to survey and point out flaws in New York City schools illustrates Stuyvesant’s inability to put its vast resources to use in monitoring the progress of the school. Successful reform requires identifying aspects that need to be eliminated, modified or restructured. This identification centers on recognizing not only the needs of the school, but also the needs of those within it: the students.
The report mentions the necessity of tailoring goals to the needs of the students. By providing an open forum of discussion, and making an effort to address student grievances, the administration could effectively implement successful school self-evaluation, which would include recognizing the school’s needs and its own shortcomings— the first step in overcoming them.
A May 8, 2007 Daily News article said “parents, students railed” at hearing the results of the report—and perhaps rightly so. Yet every criticism has the potential to be constructive. We should not speak out against what the report said. Our school has been blessed with a good reputation, but we are relying a bit too heavily upon it. If Stuyvesant truly wants to maintain its status, we should learn from our rating, and seek to rectify any legitimate criticisms. After all, even the crown jewel of the city needs a bit of polishing now and then.
