As the new data from the N.J. State Report Cards makes the rounds, the DOE is caught in the unenviable position of defending uneven test results from accusations of poor management. The Star-Ledger’s lede from today’s paper:
Gov. Jon Corzine’s goal of raising standards in New Jersey high schools is getting off to a rocky start, with huge numbers of middle school students failing rigorous new tests designed to prepare them for the next level.
Broadly speaking, elementary and high school students did okay. But scores of middle school students tanked, in large part because the DOE changed the definition of “proficiency” at the last minute – in fact, the definition was changed after the kids had taken the test. Some wealthy districts did fine, but over 40% of all fifth and six graders failed.
Don Goncalves, assistant board of education secretary in Elizabeth, worried about demoralized students and teachers:
The state changed the rules in the middle of the game,” he said. “We got lower scores when, in fact, there was progress in the classroom. It was a strange result.
Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the NJEA, volunteered,
Any test where 40 percent of the kids are failing immediately has to be called into question. These kids did not suddenly lose the ability to communicate or compute.
The DOE is now stuck playing defense as various parts of its efforts to reform education in N.J. come under attack. One of the DOE’s grandest initiatives, mandating a rigorous curriculum across all high schools, has provoked a bill from the Legislature, A-3692, which would reassess the high school redesign next January because of concerns that it will cost too much and lead to increased drop-out rates. The mandate for universal preschool for economically-disadvantaged 3, 4, and 5 year-olds seems to be on a trajectory to oblivion because districts can’t afford $12,000 a child and the State can’t foot the bill either. The vast regulations unleashed by the DOE this past summer, fondly known as the Fiscal Accountability, Efficiency and Budgeting Procedures, are so error-ridden and poorly-conceived that Executive County Superintendents just invited administrators to submit lists of the regulations that not only don’t save money but actually increase costs. The new State Funding Formula for schools, intended to replace the Abbott decisions which require that we fund our poorest urban districts at the rate of our richest districts, is back in court. Corzine’s well-reasoned plan to force consolidation of school districts to lower property taxes and our high cost per pupil (we’re second in the country, after New York State) is getting so watered-down that it needs a sump pump.
And now the beleaguered DOE is getting bitch-slapped by the formidable NJEA and various school officials for changing the testing rules in the middle of the game. Lucille Davy must feel like Job.
The question, then, is how the DOE can maintain its institutional authority amidst unmitigated assault? The goals are praiseworthy: bringing down costs, ameliorating tax burdens, and offering consistent and equitable public education. But the execution stinks. They’ve somehow managed to create adversaries of those they need as friends, and that’s not a strategy for success.
