« First Time Buyers Head Far Out in Brooklyn New York's Dirtiest Restaurants »

September 17, 2008

Schools Report Cards Released

Perhaps the kerfuffle over Brooklyn Heights' PS8 will be mollified by the other news about New York City schools: lots of 'em earned A's. Nine of those A's came from schools that had been marred by F's the last time around, the NY Times reported, including Clinton Hill's PS270, which the Post reported rose to sixth place overall. We poked around ourselves on the New York City schools' Web site, where you can scour the records of your neighborhood school. Here's what we found:

· Park Slope's much hyped PS 321 received a B: A for school environment, C for student progress and B for student performance;

· Boerum Hill's PS 261 earned a C: C for student progress, and B's for environment and performance;

· The Slope's PS 107, home to "Readings on the Fourth Floor," earned a solid A in all categories;

· Clinton Hill's PS 11 earned a B: a C in environment and progress and an A in performance;

· Cobble Hill's PS 29 earned a C, with a D in student progress, and A in environment and a B in performance.

More New York Schools Get A’s [NY Times]
Clinton Hill School Goes from F to A [NY Post]
Photo by bitchcakesny.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6291

Comments

Here you go Sam. Have at it.

Posted by: wasder at September 17, 2008 10:00 AM

This rating system is terrible. I worked in the school system for a while and the grades are based on improvement overall. What if the students are already doing well?

Posted by: KHuebbe at September 17, 2008 10:02 AM

I am a very happy parent at ps 11. Clearly the grades are kind of nutty. A C for progress but an A for performance. I guess when you already get and A -progress is going to be hard to come by. I would also have to take issue with the idea that the environment is a C. The school is very welcoming, great art on the walls (an artist friend who I toured a ton of schools with always focused on the art- if it all looked the same she pointed out that the art teacher was stifling creativity- very diverse art on the walls at 11). Again in terms of environment I know that I felt an steady gain in positive energy last year and this year it's even better.

Posted by: filmmer at September 17, 2008 10:08 AM

Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Am I reading this correctly? The emphasis is on "improvement" so if a school with really low scores improves they get lots of credit, but a school with consistently has great test scores might not increase them as much percentage-wise so they end up with a worse rating? Or am I not getting this? Also ratings are "adjusted based on demographic peer performance". Huh?

Posted by: Carol Gardens at September 17, 2008 10:10 AM

Even putting aside all of the strong arguments against this absolutely ridiculous rating system included in the various articles on the subject, just the fact that "nine of those A's came from schools that had been marred by F's the last time around" speaks volumes. Does anyone truly believe a school and its students can turn around like that in one year? As John Stossel would say, "GIVE ME A BREAK!"

Carol Gardens, to your point, from the NY Times article Wednesday, "...And since the school’s overall report card is based heavily on student progress — 60 percent of its rating is based on how students test from one year to the next — students with nowhere to go but down, even if just a few points, would falsely suggest that the school was in decline."

If you decide to uproot your family from one zone where the school received an "F" this year to a school that received an "A", best of luck that the reverse doesn't happen the next year. (full disclosure - I live in BH - home of PS8; still an excellent school by all sane measures)

Posted by: Biff Champion at September 17, 2008 10:21 AM

I truly believe that the system, among many other things, is designed to take pressure off overcrowded, popular schools, like 321 in the Slope, by making neighboring schools seem more desirable.

Posted by: Architerrorist at September 17, 2008 10:32 AM

It's a corporate model. I've been a desk jockey since 1994, and this grading system is analogous to the yearly reviews we generate. I was told very early in my career that, although I was doing a fantastic job, there's no such thing as getting a perfect review, because then there's nowhere to go but down. With this kind of blunt tool, there's no way to measure (or a limited way to measure) sustained achievement. It requires constant growth. In any event, many factors make a school great, beyond test scores.

Posted by: I_haz_TWO_toilets at September 17, 2008 10:52 AM

Architerrorist, I wouldn't be surprised if your theory was at least partially valid.

I_haz_TWO_toilets, nice to see you back! We missed you.

Posted by: Biff Champion at September 17, 2008 11:05 AM

I think it is human nature to blame the test and the test giver when one flunks. But the purpose of the test is to expose, a little bluntly it's true, how well the school is teaching the basics and how much progress it is making. I think the formula was devised so as to give schools in poorer neighborhoods the incentive to improve and get an "A" for that effort. What's so wrong with that?
PS 8 failed miserably on its own. It didn't need the Columbia University test formula. I read it got a score of 16. Many schools got scores in the 80's and 90's.
The BOE reallly needs to address the problem at PS 8 and first, it needs to address the depth of denial of the parents. Everyone I have spoken with is blaming the chancellor and the administration for an unfair evaluation of their "excellent" school.

Posted by: sam at September 17, 2008 11:22 AM

Thanks Biff. I've been busy sewing my jewelry into the hems of my clothes (as my Aunt's mother did before fleeing Hitler's Germany) and stuffing my mattress with money. I'm a little rattled to be living in such "interesting" times, to say the least.

A good point well taken, Sam. The issue I take with this grading system is that it turns on the ability to score well on tests, moreover, a certain kind of test, and when the test is emphasized above all else, important educational elements get lost: a spirit of inquiry and exploration, the willingness to experiment and perhaps fail, independent thought, research. Please don't misunderstand, I am not so niave as to think that the basics can be shuffled aside, in fact, I think a commitment to the basics from the beginning of life is essential (0-3 being the foundation of a lifetime of learning).

I am not an educator nor an expert by any means, but I am a parent of a small child and an avid reader, and I see this grading system as just another piece of the sickness that pervades our public school system. I just finished reading Paul Tough's "Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada's Quest to Change Harlem and America," which is about the creation of the Harlem Children's Zone, and found it inspiring and deeply heartbreaking in equal measure.

Posted by: I_haz_TWO_toilets at September 17, 2008 11:47 AM

Interesting to see that PS 10 in the South Slope, which has been gaining notice as one of the Park Slope-area up-and-comers, got the highest elementary school score in Diestrict 15 (by a significant amount0 and one of the highest scores in the city. (The reports go into much more detail than the letter grades.)

Will be interesting to see what kind of impact these scores have on real estate values in certain neighborhoods.

Posted by: marv at September 17, 2008 11:52 AM

I honestly do not know what the problem is at PS 8, I understand that the principal, though young, has bad health issues and was absent for many weeks. I think it may also be overcrowding -the "F" may solve the latter problem. If the school had recived a C I would shrug it off. tests are not perfect, that is very true. but to be among the 2 percent (2 percent!) of all schools to get an F. That is cause for concern.
I'm not writing any more about PS 8. As a Park Slope home owner, I believe this cements further the Slope's ascension as the premier Brooklyn neighborhood. But I used to live in the Heights and have many friends there. I feel sorry to see it going down the drain -being left behind is, perhaps, a better way to phrase it.

Posted by: sam at September 17, 2008 12:16 PM

"The BOE reallly needs to address the problem at PS 8 and first, it needs to address the depth of denial of the parents. Everyone I have spoken with is blaming the chancellor and the administration for an unfair evaluation of their 'excellent' school."

But what is the so-called 'problem' at PS 8? This ranking doesn't mean that the school is doing a bad job at teaching, just that the school didn't progress as much as other schools did last year on the test results. Rewarding "progress" in and of itself (as does the DOE's ranking) doesn't say anything about what levels you started and ended up at. Progress is nice but I'm more interested in the actual level of results (to the extent standarized testing can even do that). On that count, PS 8 was penalized because the DOE shifted its peer group this year. It performed above the city average in math and English (not that it's something to brag about, but hey, it's better than an 'F') but it still ended up with a D in that area because of its ranking within the peer group. The report card lists the peer group but it's meaningless because we don't know how or why those schools ended up on the list, or why DOE decided to change the group this year.

Posted by: NorthHeights at September 17, 2008 12:27 PM

sam, I'm going to stop posting on the subject after this too. I'm sure PS8 has room for improvement, and I don't deny there surely are some lessons to be learned and steps needed to be taken to ensure the school is doing the best job it possibly can. But schools do not fluctuate from year to year nearly as much as one might believe from these letter grades and I think this grading system is doing all schools and students a disservice by breaking it down like this. There might be valuable insight published behind the letter grades, but most people won't bother to look at that. If one really thinks a child will do better at virtually every school other than PS8, I think one is incredibly misguided and misinformed.

Posted by: Biff Champion at September 17, 2008 12:27 PM

Architerrorist, great conspiracy theory. Love it!

Sam, your tears at PS 8's demise are wasted. Better let them drip on sub-par schools that were given As.

PS 8's principal had a cardiac event last spring, and the school is still very much in transition. So many wonderful and positive things have happened there, it is cruel and stupid indeed to rain on it. I'm sure as principals consider their options they will think twice about taking on a school that needs as much reform as PS 8 did.

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at September 17, 2008 12:28 PM

Sam, any argument you had about the validity of these tests lost all weight when you tried to use these them as a tool to pump Park Slope real estate and bash Brooklyn Heights. (I live in neither of these neighborhoods)

Here are a few interesting bits of information taken from the NY Times article about these test scores. 30% of the schools deemed failures by the federal government got an "A" from the city. In over 60 of the schools that received an "A" from the city more than half the students failed to reach proficiency on the state’s reading test. Two of the schools that received A’s were added to the state’s most recent list of failing schools. Schools are graded by comparing them to their "peer schools" (schools that have similar demographics--race, poverty, special education and students still learning English)

Posted by: Left Hook at September 17, 2008 1:41 PM

As the happy parent of two PS107 kids I can report two hard earned facts --

1) The teachers, staff and PTA of 107 have worked hard to earn a good grade. For example, last year the school finally got a library built (the first one for the school in 105 years!).

2) Even in "A" schools the quality of education for your child depends almost entirely on the quality of the teacher in your classroom. It doesn't matter what grade the school gets if your teacher sucks the school sucks.

As far as grades are concerned I think Architerrorist has it pretty much right.

Posted by: lifeofreilly at September 17, 2008 1:56 PM

I see absolutely nothing wrong in challenging troubled schools and making them more attractive by giving them high grades when their their test scores improve among their peers.

PS 8 was supposed to be a "great" school, that is why its peers are all nice schools. Did it wish to be judged against the worst schools in poor districts? It's in Brooklyn Heights! Sure there are some kids that go there from the projects, maybe a C would have been acceptable. But an F?

One can spin it anyway one wants, but this is bad for the kids in PS 8 and it is definitely bad for Brooklyn Heights. Today other attractive neighborhoods have more to offer young parents who don't want to send their kids to a snooty, 98%-white private school.

Posted by: sam at September 17, 2008 2:40 PM

reading the comments, i think what i thought before when many posted negative assessments about the grading system - some are trying to deny that there are decent schools outside of brownstone brooklyn. this year as last, 31, 34, 132 and even 17 did really really well out of district 14. and, insideschools.org agrees.

every time i try to point out any of these schools as good options for buyers with children, I am shot down because supposedly the DOE's ratings are worthless.

well, good luck with all that. i think that you'll see the DOE's ratings are right on in many cases, and that there are options to parents.

Posted by: wine lover at September 17, 2008 3:01 PM

"I see absolutely nothing wrong in challenging troubled schools and making them more attractive by giving them high grades when their their test scores improve among their peers."

I completely agree. And I also agree that PS 8 has some work to do. However, there is also nothing wrong with understanding how the city comes up with these grades so that you can take them for what they are worth.

So people who don't want to send their kids to "snooty, 98%-white private schools" move to Park Slope so that they can live in a snooty, 98%-white neighborhood?

Posted by: Left Hook at September 17, 2008 3:23 PM

« First Time Buyers Head Far Out in Brooklyn New York's Dirtiest Restaurants »

September 17, 2008

Schools Report Cards Released

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions