GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

tinkering toward utopia

City to roll out a new “parent-friendly” school progress report

picture-101

After years of criticism that its school report cards are too difficult for most parents to understand, the city is redesigning the report cards that give each school a letter grade.

Starting this fall, the Department of Education will produce one-page progress reports that contain only the most important pieces of performance data about each school. The new reports are meant to deliver complicated accountability information “in a more parent-friendly way,” according to Phil Vaccaro, a representative of the department’s accountability office. Vaccaro presented a draft of the new report to the city school board yesterday.

The “progress report family summary” has the same content but a different design from the data-packed two-pager currently produced for each school. For example, instead of having eight different numbers to describe student progress, there is just one, the proportion of students who made a year’s progress in a single year.

A member of the school board, Dmytro Fedkowskyj, worked with the department to develop the new reports. ”We need to present them in ways parents can understand,” he said, adding that parents who misunderstood the reports could make misinformed school choices.

Critics of the progress reports said the family summary might actually be too simple. Aaron Pallas, the Columbia University professor who also blogs on this site, said the new format actually represents a “step backward” because it obscures the way that schools are compared to other schools with similar demographics.

One of the “desirable” aspects of the original progress reports was that they showed how schools fared compared to similar schools as well as compared to all schools in the city, Pallas said. In its current form, the family summary shows only how schools compare to “other schools,” but does not specify which schools are meant. “I think it’s important to retain both types of comparisons, but it will be challenging to do that with this format,” he said.

The department will continue to produce the original reports, too, which offer more detailed information.

The family summary also doesn’t solve problems with the progress reports’ underlying formula, which isn’t changing at all this year. Critics of the reports, including Pallas, have said that they are not statistically reliable. 

Plus, some parents say the heavy emphasis given to test scores is misplaced. Anna Santos, a panel member from the Bronx who has three children in public schools, said she would like to see more weight given to the surveys that parents and teachers fill out and less weight given to test score results. (The city announced today that 850,000 parents, teachers, and students completed the surveys this year, comprising 59 percent of all eligible survey-takers. Of the parents, 94 percent said they were satisfied with their child’s school, according to the city’s press release (doc).)

Vaccaro said the department would hold focus groups with parents to refine the report over the summer. The department’s goal is ultimately to integrate the new reports into ARIS Parent Link, the recently launched data system that parents can use to their child’s scores, he said. Since the system’s rollout last month, about 120,000 parents have logged in, including 10 or more parents at 60 percent of schools in each borough, officials said.

Parent Accountability Report 2009-06-23

  • Smith

    I’ve never thought to look at the report for my kids’ school, though we’re all aware they received an A. I don’t imagine the new format will spark my curiosity.

  • http://www.davidcbloomfield.com David C. Bloomfield

    Garbage in – garbage out; especially simplified garbage. No one believes the data anymore since it’s skewed from hours of preparation and other manipulations; the survey results are non-scientific; the cut scores are determined to make the administration look good; the weighting is totally subjective with no basis in research as to what make a “good school”; and while the grades may provide an internal guide to the administration as to which schools to close, the results are worse than useless for a given parent trying to make a decision about a given school for a given child since the grades may drive away students who could benefit or attract students who wouldn’t. Is this timing supposed to convince us that the third term will be parent friendly? Just more p.r. -David

  • Gideon

    You are correct that cut scores are political decisions, but given that these reports are comparative, it doesn’t matter where the cut scores are set. These reports basically rank schools against each other, which is useful information regardless of the absolute performance. Thus in the example above you have a school where only 40% of students are deemed proficient in math, yet the school gets a grade of “B” in this case. I also think it would be foolish to give more weight to surveys, especially when 94% of parents are satisfied with their child’s school. Satisfaction does not equal achievement or growth, which should be the criteria for evaluating schools.

  • Michael M.

    Agree in full with above three comments.

    Also:
    1) Two years ago or so, CEC’s and parents asked that the weight on the “progress” metric — a wild-swinging pendulum — be REDUCED, and the weight on “performance” increased. Instead, the Office of Accountability did the OPPOSITE; it INCREASED the weight on “progress” and reduced the weight on “performance.” The Orwellian corker was that they said the change was in response to parent input.
    2) The “cuts” between A and B, and B and C are arbitrary. Last year, DOE simply decided to give out more A’s. Then the Office of Accountability for Back-Slapping patted themselves on the back.
    3) Best for last — the letter grades (neither the components nor the combined) are not relative to “city-wide” performance/progress/enviro; they’re based on a school’s “peer group.” (e.g., Would you rather send your kid to a “B” school in the city-wide G&T program…. or a “B” school with a 40% graduation rate?) This is NOT a good thing, IMHO, but I understand it’s debatable. So let’s have the debate, and stop grading on an inflating curve…. on a curve.

  • Michael M.

    Subtle, but notable:
    Kudos to GothamSchools for refering to the “school board”… as opposed to the “Panel for Educational Policy.”

    Per the “PEP’s” own bylaws:
    “The Board of Education of the City of School District of the City of New York is created
    by the Legislature of the State of New York and derives its powers from State law.
    The thirteen member body designated as the Board of Education in section 2590-g of
    the Education Law shall be known as the Panel for Educational Policy.”

    And yes, the garbled syntax in the first sentence is indeed (sic). Got “Bored of Ed?”

    http (colon) //schools (dot) nyc (dot) gov/NR/rdonlyres/81EC748F-A8E8-4EA4-9C02-AC372918A065/1076/By_Laws (dot) pdf

  • Smith

    In these reports, zoned high schools are compared to schools that screen their students. These kids might look the same on paper, using whatever criteria the DOE uses to compare them, but they aren’t. I suspect it’s a deliberate attempt to make the small schools look better.

  • Pingback: » ENR Archive » June 26, 2009

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

0 comments so far today

Archives

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031