If someone told you that you could sit out the first half of a game and only have to play the second half to win, what would you think? Perhaps I am oversimplifying the predicament that results from annualizing grades, but it is precisely this kind of situation that many New York City public school educators find themselves wound up in with the overwhelming need to shift towards annualization in light of Quality Review report cards. To borrow one astute quotation from a blogger who posted in response to an article written about Spitzer’s criticism of Bloomberg’s school statistics, “Mark Twain once said ‘there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.’” Statistics can be bent and twisted to say what one wants them to say. Annualization is a classic example of using statistics to support the rise in graduation rates. In essence, annualization is a subsection of the more perplexing matter related to promoting students.
I want to make it unequivocally clear that I am not talking about annualization in terms of students having the same teachers for an entire year. Annualization, in this case, refers exclusively to the grades that are distributed to students. I was confronted with this issue during my first year of teaching. I should point out that my school received a C grade on the Quality Review and is desperately seeking a B grade for the following year. Annualization has already been adopted by several New York City public schools because it gives them the extra leverage that they need to obtain a higher grade on the report card. With this system, a grade of a 55 during the first semester will be changed to a 65 if the student passes the second semester, thus improving graduation rates, which in turn results in a higher Quality Review grade.
From my vantage point, this rather vicious cycle of passing “unqualified” students not only compromises the integrity of the school, and more importantly the dedicated teachers that are working tirelessly to ensure that students put in some effort to pass, but it ultimately sends the wrong message to students. With annualization comes the critical issue of maintaining as opposed to compromising the integrity of a school administration in favor of attaining a higher Quality Review grade. While it would be ideal to maintain integrity and pass or fail students as teachers see fit, it is unreasonable to assume that educators will be able to drastically improve passing rates without manipulating the grading systems that are in tact. To be honest, in the school setting that I work, students that fail usually have incredibly poor attendance and do not submit enough work to merit a passing grade. In fact, the line between passing and failing a student is so great that there is little, if any, argument at the end of a marking period. Several measures are taken to ensure students’ success such as calling home and contacting parents, so students are left accountable for the amount of time and effort that they want to put into a course.
It is a bit disgruntling to think that teachers should be forced to retroactively change a first semester grade for a student who passes the second semester. If the student is routinely absent and does not submit any assignments or participate in class, a failing grade for the first semester would appear to be imminent, yet this system of replacing old grades with new grades gives students the latitude to push the limit and do as little as possible to pass the course. How does this promote fairness for all the students that are consistently working hard? It sends kids the wrong message and ultimately many of them will game the system. Call it a pessimistic outlook if you may, but there are many students who will take advantage of this seemingly outrageous loophole in the system. It teaches them that they will always be given a second chance when in fact this does not really reflect reality. Furthermore, such a procedure undermines teachers’ judgment and creates a certain amount of resentment and disillusionment towards a system that encourages passing students above all else. As an English teacher, I feel that I am doing a disservice to the student and the entire world by sending an ill-equipped student out into the job market and society in general when he or she cannot read or write.
In truth, the desire to annualize grades is a byproduct of the increased competition among New York City public schools to jockey for positioning, especially when several schools are placed under review and are inevitably dissolved to form smaller schools. As a faculty member from a school that has a student population of approximately 4,500 students, I along with my colleagues are keenly aware of the city’s incessant desire to break up the school should we falter at any point. To be sure, this is why school administrators and particularly the principal have taken a propitious attitude toward adopting annualization. To say that such an issue is divisive is an understatement. While I can fully understand a principal’s desire to consider this system of grading as a way of making up ground for lost points in the Quality Review, the overwhelming majority of faculty members are disinclined to use a system of valuation that essentially undercuts their initial judgment of a student. Morale suffers and many of my colleagues feel unappreciated because the little control that they once had is now usurped by a higher authority that seems to be telling us how to do our job at each and every turn.
In a PBS Online News Hour about school reform in New York City, John Merrow’s interview with Mayor Bloomberg, among others, displays Bloomberg’s stance regarding promotion. Bloomberg himself states that “It doesn't do anyone any favors to anyone to send unprepared students up the line to the next grade. Those days, I think we all agree, are over.” Apparently Bloomberg helped end what is known as social promotion, yet it still occurs, largely in part because of the Quality Review that was implemented to map school progress. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein released the first-ever public school progress reports in 2007. According the NYC Department of Education website, out of 1,224 schools that received Progress Reports, 279 (23%) earned an A, 461 (38%) earned a B, 312 (25%) earned a C, 99 (8%) earned a D, and 50 (4%) earned an F (New York City Department of Education).
Like James Johnson who points out in Foundations of American Education, the pressures to cheat, that is, for teachers and principals to help students succeed, is not far removed from to the need to improve school ratings. (Johnson, et. al, 2008, p. 383) However, the need to improve a school’s reputation increases competition and serves as the impetus for resorting to annualization. Johnson opines that opponents to school report cards suggest that such an indicator increases competition which is not supposed to be a part of public education. (Johnson, et. al, 2008, p. 335) Needless to say, the dialogue concerning this critical debate of whether schools should use dubious tactics in retroactively changing student grades to obtain higher Quality Review grades is a matter of reconciling ethics and integrity with school reputation.
References
Johnson, J. A., D. Musial, G. E. Hall, D. M. Gollnick, & V. L. Dupuis. (2008). Foundations of American education: perspectives on education in a changing world. Boston: Pearson, 335, 383.
Lehrer, J. (28, September 2005). School reform in New York City. PBS Online News Hour. Retrieved July 15, 2008 from
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec05/nyc_9-28.html
Sullivan, P. (7, March 2007). Spitzer Criticizes Bloomberg’s School Statistics. NYC Public School Parents. Retrieved July 15, 2008 from
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2007/03/spitzer-criticizes-bloombergs-school.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment