What if someone was giving away a million dollars? Wouldn’t it be even better if the money was being spent on education?
This is precisely the problem with the new Department of Education (DOE) sponsored initiative, paying a total of one million dollars to the students of 25 public schools if they perform admirably on Advanced Placement exams. The money, offered by a private foundation, is parceled off in varying increments; $300 for a score of 3, $750 for a 4 and $1000 for a 5. The schools were chosen because they service a large number of low-income black or Latino students. The schools must have at least a ten percent pass rate on all AP exams taken. The concept is simple—cash prizes to reward educational progress. The reasoning is that ours is a capitalist society and this is just a manifestation of the market system.
Beyond such superficial observations (which are constantly promoted by the DOE), there is the deeper problem with the philosophy guiding the DOE in this endeavor.
First of all, an increased number of students passing AP exams would be a gilded gain, not a true structural benefit. The major partner behind this initiative, hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson, has publicly stated that “We’re not going to tell you how to meet this goal [of education], we’re just going to reward you when you do.” Such promise of reward with no additional instruction is unhelpful at best. The money incentive will encourage more students to take tests, yes, but it will also tempt principals and administrators to water down the curriculum and simply teach to the test.
Tilson is a businessman. Chancellor Joel Klein is a businessman. Mayor Bloomberg, the man who appointed Klein and has taken firm control of education over his two terms in office, is a businessman. These men are not educators. They have earned a great deal of money and believe that they can apply the same business practices to education. It cannot be said that their hearts are not in the right place—their tactics however, are sorely misguided.
The way to improve education is to lower class sizes. Small classes allow for discussion, personal relationships between educator and educated and sharply focused instruction. Why do gifted programs in all schools fight to keep their numbers low? This grant of $1 million, which is being spread haphazardly to 25 schools could be used to hire 20 new teachers for a year. Place just one in each school. Assuming that every single teacher goes to a large school of around 3,000 students, and that on average, 2,000 of them are in classrooms every period. One new teacher in this large school would lower the size of every class by one student. Done on a larger scale, the effects become more significant. Focusing a small portion of available funds into training and hiring teachers who will remain committed to education in New York City will drastically lower class sizes, improving education a lot more than paying kids to take tests will.
Klein has said that he is “grateful” that this private group is “stepping up to tackle the critical goal of increasing the number of students who succeed on Advanced Placement tests.” There in the rhetoric lies the very problem. Why should an increase in the number of AP tests taken be the critical goal of our city’s educational system? Every school that participates in the new program will receive $2,000 and be eligible for $10,000 more, the latter designated specifically for investment in AP classes. The program’s success is being measured solely by its business aspect.
Furthermore, AP classes are not always perfect. Some teachers are forced to rush through material in order to prepare for the exam, held a few months before term ends in our state. Valuable lesson time is lost and enrichment lessons are all but forgotten. Most AP courses are taught well below the intended college level. Students are pressured to take too many of these courses, and principals scramble to find enough qualified teachers to teach advanced-level classes to high school students.
As the spring exam approaches, things just get worse. Students cram for the test and inevitably forget half of what they’ve learned in the ensuing weeks. As the new policy comes into effect, this phenomenon will spiral out of control, as more (possibly under-qualified) students are tempted to sit for the tests. When money is involved, the stakes change. Forget about the valid argument of learning for learning’s sake; it would be naïve to assume that erudition is every high-schooler’s ultimate goal. But what about the newfound temptation to cheat? How many more test-takers will glance to their left on exam day because they know that one thousand dollars are on the line? This sullies an already sullied test. It equates the dollar sign with learning. So much for an education separate from money.
Money from the private sector is sorely needed in city education. Our city officials just need to learn how to use it.