The Problem
The New York City Department of Education manages the flagship public school system of the United States, serving a population of 1.1 million students in 1,800 schools. Educational policies established by the NYC DOE have a high likelihood of influencing the initiatives implemented in other districts across the nation, as evidenced by the development of programs similar to the NYC Teaching Fellows in high-needs urban areas across the country. As in other large, urban school districts, a significant number of New York City’s students either fail to graduate or complete school without the skills or abilities necessary to achieve a successful future. As a response to this system-wide dilemma, the NYC DOE has enacted many accountability measures to review overall school quality, the performance of principals and the performance of students at the school. Unfortunately, these assessments have failed to support students with academic struggles, as evidenced by the lackluster graduation rate of 66% that was reported by the City of New York for the 2012-2013 academic year.[1]
To better promote student success, it is imperative that the public demands reforms that will modify the ineffective practices that currently exist in the NYC DOE. The current system is designed as a one-size-fits-all model, with all students following the same academic path despite their individual needs, interests, or skills. While this model could prepare students for successful entrances into the city university system (CUNY), it does not. New York City’s students leave high schools without being appropriately prepared for CUNY entrance examinations, and as a result, are often required to take remedial classes in their first year of college. Though there have been mergers between DOE public schools and community based organizations (CBOs) to address the issues that plague struggling learners, these partnerships have not yet maximized their positive impact on student performance because schools and CBOs have drastically different standards that make it difficult to develop mutual performance goals. The DOE’s ineffectiveness stems from its rigid educational model, which fails to create individualized educational options for students, inadequately prepares students for life after high school, and prevents efficient collaboration with non-profit community based organizations.
POLICY OPTIONS
The DOE’s Ineffective One-Size-Fits-All Model
The current educational system in New York City does not offer pathways for students who wish to pursue their own versions of success, which may include goals different from college attendance. The skills necessary to obtain a diploma in New York do not prepare students for all possible opportunities that will enable them to thrive in society, as the Regents examinations are not crafted for students who might aspire to work in technical trades or service industries. For students who do not plan to go to college or pursue professional careers, the current educational system is a tedious hindrance that only increases their likelihood of losing confidence in themselves, despising the pressures imposed on them by modern society, and becoming what any individual would classify as being unsuccessful by today’s societal standards.
Educational theorists state that developing an individualized learning plan has multiple benefits for a student, as it provides them with a better opportunity to meet high academic expectations.[2] Students and parents should be given the opportunity to establish reasonable learning goals, and students should be placed on an educational path that will help them fulfill their own personal missions. One potential solution is to create a larger variety of courses, but also incorporate more writing, speaking, arithmetic, and financial management skills into the daily instruction that already occurs. A second potential solution is that the DOE designs multiple new curriculums, with each focusing on a particular academic or career path that students can select based on their academic abilities and personal preferences.
DOE’s Ineffective Preparation of Students for Life After High School
Currently, the graduation rate for students graduating with their 4-year cohort is 65%, up from 47% in 2005. Most graduates attend CUNY, making up 70% of its freshmen population. These numbers may be misleading or confusing because although more students are graduating, many must take remedial coursework upon their enrollment, significantly decreasing their likelihood of finishing college. It is critical to acknowledge that in addition to costing students time and money, remedial coursework does not grant students’ college credits. As a result, students who must take remedial classes start their college careers at a disadvantage in comparison to their peers. A study states that at CUNY “…just over half of incoming freshmen in fall 2006 got a bachelor’s degree within six years at senior colleges. At the community colleges, just 16 percent of students entering in 2009 earned a two-year associate’s degree within three years.”[3] One of the goals of the DOE is to push college and career readiness, but students are leaving high schools underprepared if only 29% of graduates have high enough test scores to avoid remedial courses in the city university system.
Ideally, the DOE and CUNY should collaborate on developing new assessments of student learning. One solution is to shift from a standardized test focused curriculum to a portfolio based assessment tool. Rather than taking Regents or placement exams, students would complete Common Core aligned projects to prove their college readiness. A second solution is to create a specific College and Career curriculum with a minimum credit requirement. This would build students’ awareness and understanding of what life after high school looks like during their freshman year of high school. This option will allow the DOE to hold schools accountable for specific college/career skills, and ensures that all students receive the same information.
Inefficient Collaboration between the DOE and Partnership Organizations
The performance measures of non-profit organizations do not often align with those of schools they partner with, which is typically due to funding. For example, in 2011, New York City was awarded roughly $60,000 to distribute the Education Partner Organizations through School Improvement Grants that focused on turning around schools across the city with performance measures focused on student attendance and staff turnover rates.[4] The same EPOs that received SIG funding could simultaneously receive funding from a foundation to run programs to combat summer learning loss based on a different set of criteria. The challenge is that neither set of outcomes are aligned with the principal performance review which as of 2013-2014, focuses largely on student achievement, improvement and school culture.[5] This type of goal misalignment makes it difficult for principals and leaders of nonprofits to work together effectively.
One solution to this problem is to require all non-profits that receive funding from the Department of Education or another government agency to align their goals with the district or a specific school. Nonprofit organizations that cannot align their goals with the Department of Education without compromising their program model do not need to compete for government funding but can seek money from private foundations and still work in and with schools. This policy gives organizations the ability to be autonomous, true to their mission, vision and program but adds a layer of accountability to ensure that money coming from the government is utilized effectively to increase graduation rates and the quality of education that New York City students receive to prepare them for a more productive future.
[1] City of New York, Office of the Mayor, “The Graduation Rate Increased To An All Time High”, Dec 4, 2013, accessed Mar 19, 2014, http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/387-13/mayor-bloomberg-chancellor-walcott-new-york-city-students-achieved-all-time-record/#/0
[2]Goodwin, M., and Forsyth, H.A. (2000) A Development of Professional Studies by Negotiated Work-Based Learning. In: The Impact of Work Based Learning: proceedings of a conference, Cambridge, 14/15 December 2000. Cambridge: Work Based Learning Network of the Universities Association for Continuing Education.
[3] New York City Department of Education. NYC Graduation Rate Class of 2012 (Cohort 2008). 2012. Microsoft Power point http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/31DFBEE6-2620-4792-BE7A-01B00F2E5B56/0/2012GraduationRatesPUBLICFINALWebsite.pdf
[4] New York State Education Department, News, Sept 7, 2011, accessed Feb 28, 2014, http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/SIG.NYC.60M.html
[5] New York City Department of Education, Field Guide for 2013-2014 Principal Performance Review, accessed Feb 1, 2014,http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/9E8BDA3B-3D19-43F8-B4CC-FC305D4B1C20/0/PPRFieldGuideCFarina.pdf