January 9, 2004

MEASURING EDUCATION.

By James Eugene*

I am always a little amused by the big hoopla that is usually associated with test scores for the New York City schools. Miniscule changes in results of the Math and Reading exams have huge political consequences and will probably have more impact in the next Mayoral election because education is the top priority of the Mayor Billionaire Administration.

I am not a buyer of all of this. Granted, there is no other way to measure performance, but do test scores really measure the improvement of a school system? Or do test results really measure the performance of society?

It is a common perception that the City will need more money devoted to its education system in order to comply with recent Court orders demanding a basic level of education. But will simply devoting those resources result in improvements?

If one looks at the performance of City schools (and mind you, the City recently came in second among major cities in an educational performance test), the common refrain is that City schools do not perform well. This blanket perception is unfair. For example, a number of school districts are first rate. Some cases in point. In what used to be Districts 25, 26 and 31 (Northeast Queens and Staten Island), the schools are uniformly good. Now many of you are stating that these areas contain a disproportionate amount of white neighborhoods. First, this is less true than in past years as those areas have increased ethnic and minority populations. Second, the "white" factor has little to do with this in the long-run. For example, I left out one high-performing district, District 29. District 29 is in Southeast Queens and it is uniformly black! So race is NOT a factor. Schools work in certain districts and less so in others in our City school system of over 1,000,000 children.

What is similar in all the above neighborhoods is income. All four districts are predominantly solid middle income and upper middle income areas. For the most part there have stable family structures and stable institutions. But what about other parts of the City? According to the Citizens Committee for Children, approximately 43% of the City's children live in poverty (close to 1 million children). Other groups have the number as low as one-third (still, a significant figure). Obviously, not all of these children are school-age, but most are. And if 33-43% of the school age children live in poverty (and even more in near poverty), what is the impact of that impoverishment on test scores? I do not think it is good.

In adding money to a City budget, do we have measurements for the challenges our children face outside of school? Lowering class size might help, but how much will it help if the child is living in a homeless shelter or in an overcrowded situation? How much will it help if a parent suffers from an addiction? How much will it help if the child lives in a crime-ridden area? How much will it help if the child lives in hunger? The answer is not much.

Our City's children overcome a lot. One of the best stories of this past year was the Harlem Little League team, a team who had members challenged due to residency restrictions. That was because a number of those children were homeless and had to move out of Harlem to live in a shelter not within district boundaries (indeed, 16,500 children at any given time are homeless and the number who experience that condition in a given year is much more since families move in and out of homelessness). Those Little Leaguers had to travel back to their home schools (and back to their home teams). Many homeless children travel as well, simply to get to their original schools and maintain some continuity in their lives. The school system is not going to solve the homeless problem, nor will it solve the poverty problem. But it is obligated to educate these children. And that can be a daunting task!

Moreover, poor people are more apt to be less educated. Poor parents may want their child to be educated, but may be less able to give the resources and assistance that a more educated richer set of parents might give. Remember education may begin at school, but it continues at home. An educated parent is better able to continue the education. Thus, the poor children are at a disadvantage because their at-home education will be less effective.

In the end we need to stop looking at our school system with such broad strokes. We need to develop different strategies for different neighborhoods. Central Harlem will not require the same curriculum as Bayside. Not because one neighborhood is uniformly black and the other is lily-white (and/or Asian), but because one is impoverished and the other is not.

So in improving test scores we cannot look just to the education system for improvement, but to the whole of a child's existence. Senator Hillary was right, it does take a village. And a village is more than just the school system.

COUNCIL MEMBER PIE IN THE SKY.

I was amused by a piece by Council Member David Yassky in the Daily News. Yassky had a "big idea" for affordable housing: allow developers to construct in manufacturing areas. (Not really a novel idea as it has been around for ages.) Yassky viewed this idea as a rezoning initiative to create more affordable housing and his piece oozes with concern for affordable housing. Is this the same Council Member Yassky who wants to rezone areas of Brooklyn in order to make those areas less dense and thus, less affordable?

Moreover, rezoning in manufacturing zones is not a cure-all. In fact, many of these areas have toxic clean-up issues and redevelopment will cost more money than usual (and possibly cost the City the same subsidies that Yassky says are unavailable for affordable housing). Yet, Yassky would make areas which do not have such environmental issues more expensive to the developer. Do I really believe Yassky cares about affordable housing? Not quite.

The fact is that there is no easy way to develop affordable housing and just about every City Council member just does not get that. Rather than face the really hard issues of how to stimulate affordable housing, most would rather grand-stand and pay lip service to the issue. Besides, if anyone ever comes out with a housing affordability proposal (and just about every Council Member claims to have one) and does not have any financial figures attached to it (and just about every Council Member does not have any such figures), you know that person is not serious (and we know just about every Council Member is not serious).

When it comes to the Council, beware of any trumpeted proposal that is hailed as a cure-all (or even a cure-something). Usually, it cures nothing.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.