Reply To Resnick’s “Reforms, Research And
Variability”
Lois Weiner
New Jersey City University
Citation: Weiner, L.
(2004, February 3). Reply To Resnick’s “Reforms, Research And
Variability”.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(28c). Retrieved
[date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n28c/.
Related article:
Vol. 11 No. 28
|
Abstract
Dr. Resnick’s response to my article and
HPLC’s final report on CSD 2 shows we concur about two key
concerns. One is the difficulty and importance of developing
modes of research that allow university-based scholars to assist
school officials. Another is attention to variability in
achievement levels associated with students’ race and
ethnicity. However, her response still fall short in taking into
account external threats to the validity of the study’s
conclusions that CSD 2's model of reform has raised achievement
and is exportable. I present newly available census data that
suggests why use of data disaggregated by race and ethnicity is
essential to make a compelling case that the rise in test scores
was not caused by the influx of different kinds of students. I
suggest that while pointed, the article’s critique is
political in nature and does not constitute a personal attack on
the researchers’ whose work has been scrutinized. I propose
that airing differences among researchers on difficult questions
in urban school systems can model the kind of frank exchange
that should occur when researchers and school officials
collaborate, so as to make space for dissenting viewpoints in
schools.
|
I appreciate Lauren Resnick’s thoughtful
response to my critique of research done in and on District 2,
and I hope that other scholars whose work has proposed that CSD 2
is a model for urban school reform, including Dr. Elmore, will
join in this discussion.
(Note 1)
Dr. Resnick and I concur on two key issues. One
is the difficulty and importance of developing modes of research
that allow university-based scholars to assist school officials.
Another is the importance of taking into consideration the
variability in achievement levels associated with students’
race and ethnicity. In this second regard, HPLC’s final
report is considerably more nuanced in its characterization of
District 2's success than the earlier reports (HPLC Final Report,
2001).
The final report also pays closer attention to CSD
2's demographics and resources and its exceptionality as an urban
district . Yet, the analysis still falls short. In this response
I present newly analyzed census data that suggests why use of
achievement scores disaggregated by race and ethnicity is
essential to make a compelling case that the rise in test scores
was not caused by the influx of different kinds of students. I
conclude with a response to the characterization of my article as
a “personal attack” that stems from my unexplored
“personal interest,” suggesting that the disagreement
is primarily political and personal.
Demographics And Test Scores
Responding to my suggestion that changes in test
scores in District 2 may be due to alterations in its
demographic, Dr. Resnick notes:
This gradual rise in overall achievement could have
resulted from a change in overall district demographics resulting
from more middle class students attending CSD schools. But it did
not. According to our data, during this period the percentage of
students in the district eligible for free or reduced lunch
remained stable at about 53%.
Here as in the final report, Dr. Resnick uses
data about stable poverty rates in the district AS A WHOLE.
During the period of time marked by rising test scores,
1993-1998, two striking demographic changes occurred
simultaneously in CSD 2. The median income in Chinatown fell,
dramatically, and the population of Lower Manhattan soared and
gentrified. A new analysis puts the change this way:
TriBeCa and Chinatown are divided by only
one street——Broadway. However, the disparity between
the rich on the west side of Broadway, and poor on the east side
of Broadway, grew in the last decade. According to a newly
released scholarly analysis of census data, the median household
income in TriBeCa increased $20,000 in the last 10 years to about
$90,000. In contrast, Chinatown’s median income dropped
$3,000 in the same period, to only $20,000” (World Journal,
2002, online).
As the quote above indicates, census data must be
re-analyzed to understand changes in neighborhoods in New York
City because the units of measurement in the census do not
correspond to neighborhoods - or to school districts. Still, the
analysis that has now been done, cited above, indicates the
reasons researchers’ use of an overall figure for CSD 2's
level of poverty may be misleading. The area that spans Lower
Manhattan (Community District 1), including Tribeca, is part of
CSD 2. Census data indicate that from 1994-2001 the total
population in this area increased from 25, 366 to
34,420 but the percentage of the population receiving
public assistance declined from 33.5 to 6.8%. A
sharp drop in the number of people receiving AFDC also occurred
in Community District 2, which encompasses Greenwich Village and
Chelsea, while the total population remained about the same ( New
York City Department of Planning, Community District Profiles,
n.d., online)
If one looks only at the CSD 2's overall poverty
level, one misses this change. An increased population in
Chinatown schools of poor immigrant students would have raised
the numbers of CSD 2 students in poverty. But the increase in
numbers of poor Chinese students would have been
counterbalanced by the influx of students from
wealthy and middle class families, for instance in Tribeca and
Chelsea. The census data is suggestive that the stable overall
poverty rate for CSD 2 may mask very significant demographic
changes that account for some part of the increase in test scores
over the decade.
School-Wide Data Mask Within-School Segregation
Achievement data disaggregated by race, ethnicity,
and poverty district-wide and within each school seems to me
essential to make the case that CSD 2 has succeeded in boosting
achievement of Black and Hispanic students for another reason.
Research on CSD 2 has used school-wide achievement data but this
may mask different levels of achievement within schools, due to
the presence of gifted and talented programs, programs that
enroll more White, middle class students. Employing a method of
testing for racial bias used widely to detect discrimination in
housing, ACORN, the community advocacy organization, sent
African American and White testers to New York City public
schools to inquire about placing their children in gifted and
talented programs and concluded that African American and Latino
parents were steered away from these programs (ACORN, n.d.). The
evidence was brought to the attention of the U.S. Department of
Education, civil rights division, which entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding with the NYC Board of Education in 1998 to
assure equal access (Advocates for Children, n.d.)
The ACORN report comments on these practices in
CSD 2:
At PS 116 (CSD 2), the request of the white
tester to see some classes ‘was granted graciously.’
The black tester, who was not shown any classes, was told that
classrooms were usually viewed in group tours. At another CSD 2
school, PS 11, an office worker insisted that a black tester
could not possibly live at the address she presented (London
Terrace), implying that it was not a "black" address; the tester
was then given no information about the school or its gifted
program. A subsequent white tester had no problem presenting a
London Terrace address. (n.p.)
At PS 116 (CSD 2), the principal
displayed surprise that the white tester was inquiring about the
regular program, explained the gifted program and, despite the
fact that the program has a waiting list, provided an application
form and told her she could have her child tested at a number of
locations. The white tester was even given listings of private
school bus services that provide transportation to the school
from the Upper East Side as well as from the Upper West Side --
which is not part of District 2. The black tester at PS 116 was
also treated cordially but had to inquire about the gifted
program and was told by the office person that registration did
not guarantee acceptance into the program. At PS 11 (CSD 2), the
white tester was even provided with a list of private testing
services whom she could call. (n.p.)
My article proposed that PS 11's scores required
close examination because the school’s scores were reported
in the aggregate, a factor that masked the presence of a
segregated gifted and talented program. This information is in
the section that Resnick refers to as “anecdote” but
the ACORN report confirms the information I gathered from my
informants.
“Anecdote” Or “Description Of The
Context”?
I do not dispute Dr. Resnick’s observation
that information I gathered from a relatively small number of
teachers and administrators in CSD 2 can be characterized as
“anecdotal.” I agree that it is suggestive rather
than conclusive. However, I contend that these interviews
constituted the sort of preliminary field work that researchers
regularly use to identify external threats to a study’s
validity.
Another illustration of the reasons
“anecdotal” information of the sort I gathered is
valuable is the case of PS 198, a school to which Dr. Resnick
calls our attention:
Note, for example that the school with the highest
overall academic performance in Dr. Weiner’’s Table 5
(PS 198 in CSD2), had a population of 52% Hispanic and 26% Black
students. Thus, interesting as the ““Asian
question”” is, does not call the overall record of
CSD2 into question.
A commentary piece in Education Week,
written by a literacy volunteer at PS 198 who was critical of the
“balanced literacy” initiative, and the exchanges
that ensued between Anthony Alvarado and Elaine Fink, suggest
that use of PS 198 as an exemplar of the success of CSD 2's
literacy program is problematic. (Note 2)
The
literacy volunteer, Louisa Spencer, observes
“Soon after coming to PS 198, I had heard
that its remarkable recovery in reading scores had owed a great
deal to its principal's insisting on the introduction of Open
Court in the early grades. Ms. Harwayne's exposition of the
district balanced-reading program included no such ingredient,
however, and, instead, presented with great artistry the merits
of the district's system, denying the reality of any dichotomy
between phonics and "whole language" methods and explaining how
the district seamlessly combines them.
But I was curious about PS 198's introduction of
Open Court, and after the program, I asked her about it. She was
visibly annoyed and replied quite forcefully, yes, it was
introduced because that school seemed to need extra phonics, but
it would never be allowed in any other district school
(italics in the original). (Note 3)
Spencer’s comments mirrored information I
had gathered about 198's use of Open Court from other
informants, but as I had been unable to make direct contact with
anyone who had worked in PS 198, I did not use this information
and did not discuss PS 198's scores. Curiously, despite the
public nature of Spencer’s comment that the school relied
on materials that are not associated with the District 2 literacy
model, Dr. Resnick presents PS 198 as evidence of District 2's
success in increasing the achievement of minority students who
are not Asian—without discussion or refutation of
Spencer’s report.
Political Critique
My critique is not intended to minimize the
difficulties that arise in collaboration between researchers and
school officials, or the importance of trying to develop new
sorts of cooperation, especially in urban districts. However, I
maintain that collaboration demands the stance from
university-based researchers of “critical
friendship.” The insular nature of the relationship
between the researchers and CSD 2 officials, including union
leaders, as articulated in the “nesting doll” study
design, seems to have undercut the aspect of critique that was
needed.
I regret that Dr. Resnick considers my analysis of
research on District 2 a personal attack. That is certainly not
my intent. The discussion in my article is of research formulated
and reported by the principal investigators of the studies,
including but not limited to Dr. Resnick. Her biography makes
clear that as a conscientious scholar she takes personal
responsibility for research published under her name. My article
criticizes work for which she is a principal investigator. I
acknowledge that the article may be unusual in the sharpness of
its political criticisms of the research but it leaves
the calculation of the moral dimensions of the
researcher’s roles and decisions to readers.
My initial motivation for examining research on
CSD 2 was an interest in determining why a school with high test
scores was under “surveillance,” a term that I
acknowledge is is pointed but describes the intense scrutiny and
discipline of school people enforced through the “walk
through.” I fully described my relationship with the
school elsewhere, in a publication cited in the article (Weiner,
2002). I submit that my interest in research on CSD 2 is no
more “personal” than Dr. Resnick’s in
collaborating with CSD 2 officials. However, I do have a
political reason for pursuing this research, one
unconnected to the curricular content of the model, on which I
have offered no opinion beyond suggesting that all “one
size fits all” curricular mandates fail to take into
account the importance of context (Weiner, 2002). One political
concern I have about CSD 2's model is its presumption that
professionals should control schooling (Weiner, 2002). CSD 2's
assumption is challenged by a new research synthesis about
benefits that accrue from schools’ respect of knowledge
that families bring to children’s schooling (Henderson and
Mapp, 2002).
Another political issue sparked my study of
research on CSD 2, my concern about fear among teachers and
administrators in CSD 2 schools who felt inadequately protected
by their union. Children who are taught by fearful teachers do
not learn how to think critically or to be courageous in defense
of unpopular ideas or beliefs, and I believe this is as important
to schooling as what is contained in any math or literacy
curriculum. An essential role of research, especially in
bureaucratic, hierarchical school systems, is to make elbow room
for critique by asking very hard questions and pressing school
officials to do the same. Research that fails to uncover tacit
cultural assumptions, for instance about whose knowledge counts,
can miseducate talented, conscientious school officials with whom
researchers collaborate because the research deflects attention
from very difficult topics, ones essential to reform, like the
variability of student achievement associated with race and
ethnicity.
I hope that understanding of CSD 2 as a model for
urban school reform has been refined in this exchange of
sometimes sharp differences. Just as important, I hope we have
modeled and made space in urban schools for similar discussions
among families, teachers, and administrators. I thank Dr.
Resnick for responding to my article and thus joining with me in
this project.
Notes
1. A
more recent addition to the scholarship on CSD 2's model has been
done on its implementation in San Diego. Discussion of this
research goes beyond the scope of my EPAA article and response.
However, some of this new research adopts the same uncritical
perspective about the model’s implementation in New York.
For instance, one report comments that Anthony Alvarado "moved
District #2 to the second highest performing community district
in New York City, out of 32 districts, in his 10 years as
superintendent."(p. 2), Hightower, A. ( 2002). San Diego City
Schools: Comprehensive reform strategies at work. Teaching
Quality Policy Briefs. University of Washington, Seattle WA:
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
2. The
original article is one of “Two Views of Manhattan’s
District 2,” in Education Week, 28 February 2001
available to registered users at
http://www.educationweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=24district2.h20.
An article I wrote is the other viewpoint. Anthony Alvarado
and Elaine Fink’s commentary “Critiques of District 2
Are Seen as Baseless,” in Education Week, 28 March
2001, is available to registered users at
http://www.educationweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=28letter.h20.
3. The response by the literacy volunteer, Louisa Spencer,
“District 2 Critique: No Ideology Involved,” to
Alvarado and Fink’s commentary is available to registered
users at
http://www.educationweek.org/ew/
ewstory.cfm?slug=30letter.h20&keywords=%22Spencer%22%20and%20%22Louisa%22
References
ACORN,( n.d.) “A Report on Racial Discrimination
Against Black and Latino Parents and Children in the New York
City Public Schools,” by the New York ACORN School Office,
available at
http://www.acorn.org/ACORNarchives/studies/secretapartheid/.
Accessed 8 August 2003.
Advocates for Children, Gifted and Talented Programs,
available at
http://www.advocatesforchildren.org/resource/gifted.php3.
Accessed 6 August 2003.
Henderson A. & Mapp K. (2002) “A New Wave of
Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections
on Student Achievement,” published by the Southwest
Educational Development Lab, available at
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/fam33.html.
High Performance Learning Communities Project: Final Report
(September 15, 2001). Learning Research and Development Center,
University of Pittsburgh, September 15, 2001. Accessed 7 August
2003.
New York City Department of Planning, Community District
Profiles. Available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/lucds/cdstart.html.
Accessed 7 August 2003.
Weiner, L. (2002). “ Assessing systemic’’s
reform ‘learning by all’: Who evaluates learning by
policy analysts? Educational Policy, 16(2): 239-263.
World Journal (2002 August), “Where new immigrants
rushed in, median income dropped; Chinese community’s
median income slid in the past decade.” Accessed 8 August
2003 at http://www.indypressny.org/article.php3?ArticleID=301
About the Author
Lois Weiner
Lois Weiner is a Professor of Elementary and Secondary
Education at New Jersey City University, 2039 Kennedy Blvd.,
Jersey City, NJ 07305. Email correspondence should be addressed
to LWEINER@NJCU.EDU.
|
