One Week Later and I Am Still Talking to Myself: This Time About State Takeover Districts.
If you read my blog last week, I spent some time talking to myself as I read through the Education Transformation Task Force’s Initial Report. Yes, last week I was very supportive of some of its recommendations, and I still am. But two little things have kept me talking to myself about the report.
One that gnawed at me was when the report emphasized the achievement gap and used it as a reason to accept the task force’s report. As I stated earlier, I agree with many of the recommendations, and I believe that the achievement gap is a national problem that we cannot ignore. That being said, the report seems to give the impression that the achievement gap is solely the responsibility of the education community and that there are no other factors that affect student achievement other than what transpires inside the school building. We all know that one of the greatest indicators of student achievement has nothing to do with teachers or the curriculum. It has to do with the student’s economic situation. There is a clear link between poverty and academic achievement. Yes, this link is intractable and persistent but ignoring it does not make it go away.
The task force may believe that school districts cannot control the economic circumstances of their students. However, schools still need to put forth every effort to see that all students achieve, no matter their background. While poverty is a factor, we cannot accept it as an excuse.
I agree with that belief. We all know that a good education can provide a way out of poverty for students, and poor students need a good education more than anyone. But it is also a stubborn truth that a student’s poverty is an educational handicap, and as a society we have not found an easy way to overcome this handicap and should not give an illusion that a simple change here or there is the magic pill.
The other issue that got me to talking to myself had to do with the state take-over districts. The task force, in its argument to reduce the paperwork and to reform NJQSAC, gave an example of the Paterson school district. The task force noted that Paterson scored an 88 percent in governance on NJQSAC, which would suggest that they are well-run, while their student test scores do not suggest that.
I am not going to argue over whether a good NJQSAC score translates into better academic achievement, which is what we would hope would be the case of any monitoring system. That is questionable and the Task Force obviously thinks there is no correlation.
No, the issue I see is this: who really runs the three state takeover districts? It seems that the state is critical of the academic achievement of the district’s students under the current local advisory board and the school administration, and so the state is rather hesitant to let these districts exercise local control. However, the State of New Jersey is the final authority in these districts and is fully responsible for their test scores. After all, the state has been in control in these districts for some time now (20 years in Paterson). So who owns the academic achievement: the State of New Jersey or the Advisory Board, which has no authority in areas of school finance and personnel?
It would seem to me that the state has to take some responsibility since it is the final authority. I should note that this administration has been in charge for less than two years so it would be difficult for them to show great improvement so quickly. (Although perhaps one of the problems is that in 20 years, there have been numerous administrations all with different philosophies about urban education.)
If the NJQSAC monitoring system is supposed to rate the leadership and governance in school districts, who is it rating in the takeover districts? Is it the district administration, the advisory board, or the state? I understand that NJQSAC was designed to help gradually release the state from running the districts of Paterson and Newark Maybe that is because through the years it is hard to make the argument that state control has proved to be significantly better (some might argue that it has not proved to be any better) than local control.
Tags: Education, Education Transformation Task Force, Paterson, Ray Pinney, state takeover, urban education
October 14th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Ray,
I don’t necessarily agree that poverty is the reason some students do not achieve. The conditions that result from poverty may hamper a student’s achievement but all children can achieve. Schools can not do anything to directly change the economic situation of students, but schools can be a driving force in improving some of the conditions that make achievement out of reach for some students.
For instance, after school programs, if structured properly, can give students a quiet and safe place to do homework or expand on learning opportunities. The same can be said with making computers available to students once the school day has ended, but it would have to be monitored; hence the earlier qualifier of “structured properly”. The unfortunate part of providing after school programs is the added cost to the districts when so many other programs are being cut because of tight budgets. We can not “fix” poverty but we can offer educational opportunities and help break the cycle.
Second, regarding the Education Transformation Task Force, I have to be a little critical on some of the assumptions regarding NJQSAC. First, NJQSAC is an onerous system that is supposed to be a great indicator of how a district is performing but it falls short in several major ways. Our district was painted with a large brush in the report with a couple of other districts accused of “gaming the system”. The truth of the matter is most districts fall victim to the whims of the reviewers performing the assessments. I have personally reviewed the DPRs, the district score, the county score and the comments from the county. It was very obvious that some of the reviewers were having a bad day and erroneously took points away because they “were not satisfied” with the information provided. We have also spoken with other districts, who were viewed very favorably in their DPRs, and they were not required to provide “the proof” other districts were required to provide.
It is only my personal opinion but I do believe districts are not being evaluated equitably through the QSAC process and it is unfairly “labeling” certain districts. The main focus of QSAC is to level the playing field, objectively review districts strengths and weakness and provide for a system of improvements to help struggling districts reach the level of high performing districts. Unfortunately, it is more of a punative system designed to punish already struggling districts, consume massive amounts of administrative time that can be better spent transforming districts and takes the focus away from student achievement, which was supposed to be reason the system was implemented.
Lastly, it can not be stressed enough that our public school system is constantly bombarded with every whim and wish the Courts, the Legislature and DOE can impose upon us. Is it any wonder that some districts are having difficulty trying to balance the “mandated requirements” and having sufficient time left to provide for a thorough and efficient system of education, especially where societal problems only compound a student’s opportunity to learn?
If the State really wants to help, try providing highly skilled professionals to districts, upon the district’s request, to consult with them to build a better system instead of being ready to pounce on districts if they deviate from the charted course. This is why guidance counselors are different than disciplinarians. Some are there to help while others are there just to punish you.
October 14th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Ray,
I’m glad I’m not the only one that recognizes that a huge part of the failure of education in some of the poorer districts is not due to failure of the schools to educate, but rather the conditions that face these children after they walk out of the doors. It’s hard to concentrate on math homework when you’re afraid of being shot or your hungry or your mom has to work 3 jobs just to make ends meet. I like Rich’s idea of using funding to provide kids with programs after school that keep them safe and occupied. When I look at the per-student spending in some of those districts, I think it would be cheaper to pull the kids out and send them to private school- DON’T overreact to that- but obviously just throwing money at the schools isn’t helping. How do we hold them accountable? I don’t know the answer, but we do have an obligation to help get these kids out of the welfare cycle and realize they are worthy and can acheive.
BTW- it was a pleasure meeting you last week. It’s nice to put a face with the blog.