A student’s recipe for success consists of diligence, time management and a dash of natural talent. Such intangible qualities are translated into the numerical grades on our report cards. But until now, there has been no uniform, tangible measurement of school achievement.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has designed a system whereby schools receive grades from A through F based on three criteria: school environment, student performance and student progress. The information for the first criterion comes from surveys that teachers, students and parents complete. The second two are based on standardized test results. The overall points gained in each criterion translate into a letter grade.
In schools that received F’s and D’s, the principal may be fired, students may be asked to transfer or the school may be closed down. Though most schools passed, 50 New York City public schools failed.
The system has already limited itself: a large proportion of the grade depends on yearly student progress. Bloomberg intended to differentiate among schools based on increasing success so schools that have more room for improvement will receive higher grades in consequent years.
On the other hand, schools that perform consistently well will receive lower grades because they are not improving significantly. Even though Stuyvesant received an A this year, this may not happen in future years.
This grading process is too simple and inefficient for a complex range of schools with varied conditions. Whether the problems include lack of communication with students, deficiency in qualifications or a restrictive surrounding, each school has weak points that remain unaddressed by the grading system.
An all-aspects-encompassing system would evaluate every area that influences learning. The mayor must realize that the requirements of the present system prevent certain schools from taking full advantage of the assessment. In some cases, schools are receiving bad grades for the wrong reasons. If Stuyvesant were to receive anything below an A, it would not be because of the quality of education, but because Stuy has not been progressing.
Some schools would inevitably fail if the grading system were to stress present performance instead. But the system should also isolate academically failing schools, those with F’s and D’s. Further action can then be taken to benefit students, as well as provide an incentive, or threat, to motivate other schools to do well. The government could provide money and resources in addition to removing the principal to help improve the level of education of those schools.
Bloomberg’s present policy towards failing schools provides only for the first step of action. We now need a systematic approach improve schools.
