PS 321 losing its luster?

Redraw the district lines?

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 1:59 PM

According to those grades, some failing schools with very few kids who meet standards (let alone exceed them, like they do at 321) got A's. That's because the score doesn't reflect how many kids at a school met or exceeded standards (which is what really tells you how "desirable" a school is) but how much a school improved that number from the previous year. So schools that, for many years, have nearly every student performing well get bad "grades" if those scores dipped even slightly, or just stayed the same from 2006-2007. They are now failing, and a school with horrible test scores that managed to double the % of students just meeting standards (much easier to do if you are going from 10% to 20%) get A's. I have no problem with the DOE recognizing those schools which are doing a fantastic job teaching the kids who are hardest to teach, but to pretend that good schools are mediocre or failing just because their test scores, while still excellent, didn't improve, is really a waste of money better put to use in the classrooms.

107, however, is an excellent school. But not because of the top grade it got. There are many schools now on par with 321, but many of the schools who got a better "grade" than them are not ones you would choose to send your child if you had another option.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 2:09 PM

most of those "huge condos" are 1 and 2 bedrooms.

very few families are moving into anything on 4th avenue.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 2:10 PM

thanks for that, 2:09.

55% of the grade in fact was how much improvement there was on these test scores.

so a school already doing well like ps. 321 suffered the penalty in this particular situation than the underperforming schools which showed improvements.

it is misleading.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 2:12 PM

I posted earlier under the Tuesday links section about this subject and feel obliged to further share that which I know.

I recommend that parents who are searching for schools [and real estate!] do not take these letter grades at face value; the letter grades posted simply do not line up with the written reports that these schools received about a month ago. Please use www.insideschools.org for more accurate and honest assessments. [And NO, I have no connection to that website or anyone who is involved with it.] I endorse it because I visited many schools before choosing our school, and never disagreed with any of the opinions stated on the site. I also found that 95% of school administrators I would speak with respected the opinions of insideschools.org - and that spoke volumes to me.

In our case, our south slope zoned elementary school was, just last month, given detailed, extensive and glowing written reviews and there was very little about the school that was criticized in the report. In fact, the criticisms seemed so minor and insignificant as to make us laugh at several points along the way. (And the mumbo jumbo-encoded language was incredibly amusing in and of itself.) They lauded the administration and staff, and found much to admire regarding almost every aspect of the school's approach to teaching, just as we have over the past several years. When we finished reading the report, we were convinced that the school would receive an "A." And of course, this made complete sense to us, as our child has flourished and excelled there in all areas of study - it's also a school that we have continually recommended to others...

But it didn't get an "A" - It got a "C"... We were shocked!

Well, further research has made me realize some things about this fiasco that a subsequent poster on the Tuesday links noted - that the letter grades are in fact a result of a very strange and confusing grading process - one in which schools are in essence given a "demerit" if the percentile of students at or above grade level drops by even a miniscule amount from a previous year. Conversely, if a school that in the past [and even present!] had crummy test scores [and even a bad reputation amongst other teachers and parents] raised the percentage of "at or above grade level" students just a little bit, then that school would be rewarded with a higher letter grade.

This is why you will see some schools receive an "A" even if the overwhelming majority of their students don't meet standards, just as you'll see consistently excellent, high achieving schools [like 321] drop from an "A" to a "B" or even worse. It's just plain weird, perhaps even a bit psychotic.

I don't know what this entire process was supposed to do "at the end of the day" but I believe that the results will continue to spark outrage, disbelief, stress, suspicion, and a bunch of other negative, unnecessary things.

I HIGHLY recommend that parents visit each and every potential school for themselves, speak with administrators, other parents, attend school events, and use the www.insideschools.org website to help make the proper choice for their children. This grading system has been an utter disaster and I feel absolutely terrible for the administrators, teachers, and parents who have done everything in their power to create a great school for the benefit of the kids and surrounding communities.

It's just not right, and I trust that Mayor Bloomberg is intelligent enough to know it and not let it happen again. Whatever that takes...

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 2:28 PM

2:28 PM
given detailed, extensive and glowing written reviews

Were do you get these reviews?

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 2:40 PM

I agree with much of what 2:28 is saying. Basically, when these schools get grades, the grade does not represent "How good a school this will be for your child" but instead "How much success is the school having in raising student performance compared with previous years." Just because 107 got an A, 321 got a B, and 39 got a C does not make one or the other "better" for your kid. The demographic changes in the 107 zone (fairly rapid gentrification) give it a huge advantage compared with 321 (well off and always has been) and 39 (not as well off and not moving up as rapidly as 107).

You would probably be horrified at what goes on at some of the A schools, and flabbergasted that some got Ds (like 154 in Windsor Terrace, if I remember correctly). There are EXCELLENT teachers and students at 39 and 154 just like there are at 107 and 321, and there is "deadwood" at every one of those schools as well. My kids go to 39 and I've been shocked at how competent and dedicated the teachers are there. A new principal took over this year, who I believe is doing a superb job. You'd be foolish to dismiss that or any other school as poorly run because it got a C.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 2:59 PM

"I don't know what this entire process was supposed to do "at the end of the day"

Quite simple actually. The purpose is to hold accountable those underperforming schools in the city and move them forward to try to bring as many students as possible up to grade level.

This wasn't a personal vendetta against you as you make it seem.

Your word psychotic is weird at best. Do you think it's the city's job to give your school an "A" so that you can see further home appreciation or what?

This test was not about YOU.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 3:12 PM

Why not applaud those schools that got an A and may be a surprise to everyone, like 107, who take it for granted that 321 is the only good school in Park Slope (for example). I don't think anyone will take this as the final word. If your school got a C then perhaps next year it will get a B or an A and you can be happy about how much it's improved, as I'm sure the parents who have chosen 107 are doing right now.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 3:23 PM

LOL @ breeders and their obsessions with their crotch-fruit...

ZOMG OVER MY DEAD BODY IS LITTLE DYLAN GOING ANYWHERE BUT PS 321!

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 3:24 PM

I don't really hear many people say that PS. 321 is the only good school around. People who know nothing about schools or don't have kids say stuff about it, because they think it's fun to make fun of Park Slope in general. Lots of bitter comments about the fact that prices are higher if a home is in ps. 321 district, etc etc, but those comments are generally not made by anyone who knows a thing about it.

While PS. 321 is well regarded, I hear good things about many other schools.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 3:30 PM

3:24 ... "crotch-fruit"

hahahahahahahahahahha

that was funny

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 3:38 PM

2:28pm you shouldn't feel bad your kids' school got a C. The school my kids go to (PS 58) got a D, despite having very high test scores consistently (as well as just being a very pleasant place to learn).

But, according to the DOE, the school is essentially failing because the test scores of the 4th graders didn't improve from the previous year, when they were 3rd graders. It doesn't matter whether both years the school had fantastic results, since year 2 wasn't better than year 1, the school failed. The fact that the kids got such great scores in 3rd grade because the teaching in K, 1st and 2nd grade was so wonderful doesn't count one bit. In fact, the school would have received a far better "grade" from the DOE if that teaching in grade 1 - 3 had been a bit worse so the kids didn't do quite so well on the 3rd grade test. That way, it would have been easier for them to show an "improvement" in 4th grade, which is what those grades measure.

A principal's worst nightmare is to have the school teach the kids so well in the early years that when kids take the 3rd grade test, they are all performing to best of their abilities and the scores are amazing. Because then there's nowhere to go but down, even if it's only a fraction of a % point and your scores are still great by any standard.

Measuring progress in schools is important, but the DOE has spent $80 million dollars to design a statistical program that doesn't take into account that the variance between 90% exceeding standards and 91% or 89% exceeding standards in a given year is not a material difference. But instead, that is the prime basis for how all these grades are awarded. The DOE would have been better off spending its money training some of its administrators in basic statistical analysis before letting them award big money contracts to corporations that are a giant waste of money.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 3:46 PM

2:28 here responding to questions...

To 2:40, The detailed reports were sent home with my child. I don't know how you could get them, but you might try calling the school itself. Perhaps they'll mail you a copy. Or try 311.

To 2:50, You probably are in district 15, but you should call 311 and ask them, as zones change. It used to be easy to find your zoned school online, but for some reason the nyc.gov site makes it difficult now. Call 311 - they can tell you what your zoned elementary school is when you tell them your exact address.

To 3:12, You might want to take a remedial course in reading comprehension, because you inferred something that I most definitely did not imply. And I will defend my use of the word psychotic - millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on this grading system and yet it has provided no real clarity and it is incredibly misleading - adding just more confusion.

To 3:23, Any applause for any school receiving an "A" may well be false applause - The point I made earlier is that these letter grades can't be trusted. Your rebuttal is akin to someone saying: "But this meat must be safe to eat - It has a USDA label on it." And, unfortunately, I believe that many people will take these letter grades as the final word.

What I find most disturbing is that these grades have the potential to negate lots of hard work while rewarding mediocrity.

To 3:46, Thanks, but don't worry - I don't feel bad. (My kid doesn't either.) I feel bad for the principal and staff because they must be shellshocked by this - The grade doesn't jibe with the written report, or with the assessment by insideschools.org which is basing their findings on several years of observations, or with my personal, hands-on assessment of the GREAT job that this school is doing. If this school wasn't doing right by my kid, believe me - My kid would have been placed in private school long ago. That's how impressed I've been with it.

And by the way, 3:46, your points are excellent and well said. Thank you!

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 3:59 PM

i hope your crotch fruit doesn't turn out as self righteous as you, 3:59.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 4:05 PM

Personally I think this testing stuff is just a scam. This may be a way for the mayor to wrestle control away from the great schools by downgrading them in some way. This way they can make the rest of the schools look better at their expense. Reminds me of an old Kurt Vonegot book where the gifted people were forced to have handicaps to off-set their special abilities. Makes everybody feel better to bring the better schools down. Nice one Mr. Mayor!

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 4:11 PM

My son raped your PS 321 honor student.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 4:14 PM

To find your zoned school, check this: http://maps.nycboe.net/ Note you must use IE as your browser.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 4:20 PM

These report cards are for staff and admin and not really for parents (altho they're all OUTRAGED by it). While I would love for my kids to go to school where all the kids test at 100%, I wouldn't expect teachers to get rewarded on that alone. Because most of the schools that test really well have a student body that would test well at any school. They showed up knowing how to read. The school board really needs to look at the kids who don't. And need to be taught. It's an extraordinarily hard job and moving from 40% to 50% is big and takes a lot of work. And to get to 60-70% takes even more.

I can see where the Board of Ed is going with these.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 4:21 PM

Hey 4:20,

Thanks! I couldn't find it - guess I'm too self-righteous ;)

Peace, 3:59

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 4:22 PM

Schools are only a small part of a child's education. The type of adult most kids will grow up to be is set before they ever step foot in kindergarten.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 4:27 PM

359,

Peace? More like childish and trite. You should have stopped at crotch-fruit. You obviously yearn to have kids but, for any one of a number of reasons (impotence most likely), can't. Why else would you even be reading comments on this subject. Do all the strollers you walk by make you sad? Do you cry? I hope so you lonely, miserable jerk-off.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 4:48 PM

i agree...3:59 is crazy.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 5:03 PM

My goodness, I am so glad that you guys are discussing this. Just saw the scores and my son's JHS received a D. I was so taken a back when I saw this...mainly because I thought I made the right choice when we picked the school. This school actual had better test scores then several of the other JHS in the district and these schools recieved B. What is a parent suppose to do? It's a small school with under 300 kids and great test scores and a good track record. I'm completely lost...please advise!

A ClintonHill Lady

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 5:04 PM

I hate to break it to you drones, but not everyone wants kids.

I know some of you find that impossible to believe, but some of us really, truly don't have interest in it.

Judging by some of the terribly misguided comments from parents on here, it's obvious that not everyone who has them was cut out for it.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 5:05 PM

All your kids in B, C, D schools....GOOD LUCK GETTING THEM INTO COLLEGE!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

THEIR LIVES ARE OVER!!!!

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 5:06 PM

It's fascinating how many people read this and write comments just to vent their anger against people with kids. There must be more constructive hobbies.
I'm glad that the city has decided to reward improvements in traditionally sub-par schools, and hope there is a LOT more than a pat on the back coming.
My kids are at 321, and I'm thrilled with the place. It's certainly not the only great school around, although it seems it did set the standard and showed that a public school with a diverse student body could be excellent (and yes it is diverse- most kids don't have parents who bought their brownstone last year for 3 mill).

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 6:04 PM

6:04, I agree with you on the puzzling breeder haters who have nothing better to do (no friends) than troll blogs and trash people with kids.

But you classify 321 as "diverse?" I don't know the socio-economic numbers--but you're probably right--since so many people from other neighborhoods faked addresses to get their kids "in" there.

But racially it's 62% White, 18% Hispanic, 16% Black and 5% Asian. By suburban standards, I guess that's pretty diverse--but by the other District 15 elementary schools... it's the lily whitest.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 6:42 PM

doesn't diverse meaning something that closely resembles society as a whole? which in the case of the u.s. is right about those same exact statistics you just quoted except maybe a little more white and a little less black...

i'm confused. is your idea of diverse as many non-white people as possible or does your standards for diversity apply more to comparing ps. 321 to africa or south america than to the u.s.

those stats are about as diverse as it gets given what the u.s. population is made up of.

it is not in fact lily white, unless you consider the u.s....with roughly 70% of it's population white...also lily white.

do you want 50% black and 50% white even though that is not a representation of our society??

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 7:46 PM

Folks can we please get back to discussing what matters here and that's the school scores and our children. People need information on how to decode this new scoring system...not info on how white or unwhite the U.S.

Thanks

A ClintonHill Lady

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 7:53 PM

Actually, 7:46, if you live in New York City, I would hope your school reflects the diversity of New York City. Or more specifically, Brooklyn.

That said, based on 2000 census numbers, here's what Brooklyn looks like:

41.20% were white; 36.44% were black; 19.79% were of Hispanic or Latino origin; 7.54% were Asian; 0.41% were Native American; 0.06% Pacific Islander; 10.05% were of other races; and 4.27% were from two or more races.

So, tip of the cap to 321 (and you) on being close on hispanic numbers. Otherwise, highly whitey.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 8:01 PM

clintohilllady... if you're happy with your kid's school and they're doing well, ignore the numbers. if you're not happy and they're doing poorly, find another school. but refrain from telling bored people what to do.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 8:05 PM

i was waiting for something about this on brownstoner. for all of the PS naysayers funny how THREE greenpoint/williamsburg grade schools were in the top 10 of grade schools and both PS 17 and 110 beat 321. wake up. 321 is not that great. just more white. spending more to live there isn't worth it. it's a really really crowded school and will not get better.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 8:07 PM

There is much more to diversity than skin color.
My kids don't even notice any more if their frends have 2 moms or a mom and dad of different races or if they are rich or poor.

The use of the term "diverse" as synonymous with lots of non-white people is the kind of superficial thinking I'm trying to teach my kids not to adopt.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 8:17 PM

321 is mostly upper middle class as well.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 8:19 PM

one problem, 8:07.

you live in williamsburg/greenpoint.

so while the schools might be ok, you're kids will die prematurely from living over a toxic oil spill.

oh and last i checked, bburg was pretty pricey too.

and ugly.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 8:36 PM

If you had READ the comments above, you would see that the reason other schools in Williamsburg and Greenpoint may have scored higher was because they had a farther way to improve.

Clearly you read nothing.

The scores were based on improvement in test scores. ps. 321 already HAD high test scores, so it did not improve all that much year over year.

Other crappy schools were given credit (as they should) for improving and thus were awarded higher grades based on this. So while a school in Greenpoint might score and A while PS. 321 scored a B, that tells us nothing really. When you look at the statistics, however it says that the Greenpoint school was REALLY bad before and improved a lot while ps. 321 was good and stayed good.

This is a good system to improve all schools. Everyone deserves a good education. Not just those at ps. 321.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 8:40 PM

"it's a really really crowded school and will not get better."

you are a really really ignorant person and will not get smarter.

wow. this is a fun game!

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 8:41 PM

There's also another part to this equation. If you go to the school's website to look at the scores you will see in fine print whether or not the school is in good standing. For example: MS 113 recieved a B from the city today but is in corrective action with the state of NY. The state is not pleased with the work that 113 is doing. Meanwhile, other schools in the district with better test scores who have kids that are level 3's and 4's recieved poor scores and are reporttedly in good standing with the state as well.

This leads me to ask one question: What is going to happen to all the schools next year that may not show substantial progress? Sounds like those A's & B's will become D's.

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 10:18 PM

8:01....why wouldn't you use "diversity" numbers for Park Slope only...where ps. 321 is located then...not all of Brooklyn.

In this instance, looks like the school is even MORE diverse than the neighborhood it lies within.

We can all twist things around to fit our own agendas. See how that works?

Posted by: guest at November 6, 2007 10:45 PM

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein have praised the grades as an accurate measure of school quality that will help parents gauge how well schools are serving their children. They, and their supporters, say the new rating system gives credit to unsung schools that work wonders with struggling students while shining a spotlight on weaknesses at celebrated schools."

Posted by: guest at November 7, 2007 8:19 AM

You need to check your facts - PS34 in Greenpoint got an A, has ALWAYS had good test scores and is highly regarded in the local community. It is also way more lily-white than PS321. But then it reflects the majority polish demographics in Greenpoint. It also reflects the emphasis that this mainly working class community places on education. BBurg is another matter.

Posted by: guest at November 7, 2007 9:31 AM

What's wrong with a school in a mostly white community being mostly white? Isn't it ok for a school in a mostly black community to be mostly black?
I think 321 reflects the surrounding community pretty well, unlike 282.

Posted by: guest at November 7, 2007 9:56 AM

it's fine to be mostly white, except this area is NOT mostly white. that may be your perception, but you're incorrect.

even the brooklyn heights ps has only 40% white kids.

Posted by: guest at November 7, 2007 10:04 AM

it's fine to be mostly white, except this area is NOT mostly white. that may be your perception, but you're incorrect.

even the brooklyn heights ps has only 40% white kids.

Posted by: guest at November 7, 2007 10:04 AM

you don't think 7th avenue in park slope is mostly white?

you are crazy.

you do know what mostly mean, right?

Posted by: guest at November 7, 2007 10:57 AM

7th Ave in Park Slope is seriously GHETTO. I heard some of the white kids that hang out at the pizza place across the street from 321 talkin' all "street."

Posted by: guest at November 7, 2007 2:08 PM

if you think 7th avenue is ghetto you, my friend are not cut out for city life.

Posted by: guest at November 7, 2007 2:18 PM

if you can't tell 2:08 was mocking the PS teenage wiggers, 2:18, you're not cut out for much at all.

Posted by: guest at November 7, 2007 7:16 PM

Seems to me the grades reflect how focused the school is on test scores. 321 and many other high-performing schools just don't care as much about the testing. And perhaps 39 is also focused on other educational agendas. That's not a bad thing, in my opinion.

On the other hand, it may also reflect the schools' attention to their own under-performing students, something very large and achievement-oriented schools (like 321) do less well -- leaving it up to the parents to hire outside tutors.

Posted by: guest at November 8, 2007 11:19 AM

HAHAHAHA... I can't even continue reading the rest of the comments after 5:06!

And so many people wonder why there is so much bad in the world??? Well to start of because of peole like:
4:05
4:14
5:03
5:05
5:06 and I'm sure there are more of those people on this site after that as well! Now these people have kids...they then grow up with ignorance and there is your circle!!!

ANYWAY ENGLISH IS NOT MY FIRST LANGUAGE SO IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON MY WRITING SPEAR YOURSELF...I ALREADY KNOW!!!

And to 3:59 and 3:46 Thank you for your maturity and information. It's very much appreciated.

Posted by: guest at April 29, 2008 10:21 AM