NYCulture
Page 12
veritas omnia vincit
Public School Achievement Rewarded with Cell Phone Benefits? By Tatiana Schlossberg ‘08 SECTION EDITOR
Call them, beep them, if you wanna reach them! Is this the new slogan for the New York City public school system? Earlier this month, the New York City Board of Education announced a plan aptly named “The Motivation Campaign.” The plan hopes to inspire New York City public school students to achieve by rewarding them with cell phone benefits. Spearheaded by Dr. Roland G. Fryer, the program’s aim is to motivate students in low-income, low-achievement areas to do well, both in classroom work and on various standardized tests. Dr. Fryer is the newly appointed “Chief Equality Officer” at Opportunity NYC, the department at the Board of Education that has developed “The Motivation Campaign.” Lindsey Matthews, Dr. Fryer’s Chief of Staff, said that this “Motivation Campaign” along with “Spark” (the policy that pays students for success on standardized tests) are part of an “umbrella mission, helping the New York City Department of Education to find different ways to motivate students and change the products that are available to kids. This cell phone endeavor is particularly designed to make kids think that education is ‘cool.’” “These kids see two options,” says Ms. Matthews, “one is what Roland likes to call the ‘street pharmaceutical market’ and the other one is a celebrity lifestyle. Unfortunately, neither one is educationally derived. We want to show them that education can also provide a life of success.” Even at the Department of Education, however, officials seem unsure of the efficacy of this program. “This is not necessarily more effective than giving out money, but with cell phones, we’ll be motivating students in an area that they care about: communication. This is a tangible example of how academic achievement can help them succeed,” said Ms. Matthews. However, whether the incentive is money or cell-phone minutes, educators are wary of this tactic. Carol Murphy, the Assistant Principal at Roslyn High School in Long Island, New York, says that this approach is “absurd and embarrassing.” Ms. Murphy believes that attention and funds should be focused on improving what goes on in the classroom, not on paying kids for what they should already be doing. “I don’t believe this will encourage kids to stay in school or even to continue to do well. What they really need to do is make the class sizes manageable, install programs that support kids within the classroom. What really gets them ready is classroom preparation, and programs where they can learn the material for the standardized tests.” John Nichols, former Dean of Students at Trinity School and future headmaster of a public/ private partnership in New York City, agreed: “I don’t think this is
a good plan because once bribery is used, it’s hard to avoid students’ thinking of the monetary value of everything that they’re encouraged to learn.” “I don’t even understand how Dr. Fryer can even begin to think that this will raise scores. Cash rewards and cell-phone minutes are very short-lived. They won’t change student habits. What’s to say that the cell phone will make them do better in school? It won’t increase their ability. These kids in low-achievement schools can’t do better without consistent help,” said Ms. Murphy. Even kids, both from public and private schools, have doubts. Allegra Kirkland ’08, who was once an attendee of the Delta honors program at PS 54, said, “I find it hard to believe that a kid who is struggling in school will receive significant inspiration from a text message. It seems like kind of a lame attempt by out-of-touch adults to reach out to kids, although the degree to which kids respond will probably vary from school to school. Judging from my own experience at Delta, the effects will be negligible.” Maris Gelman, 16, a junior at Bard High School Early College, a public partnership between Bard College and the New York City Department of Education, echoed Kirkland’s concerns: “I don’t think this will make kids want to do better in school, and I don’t think cell phones will be any more effective than anything else the schools could offer. Plus, I don’t think it’s fair since standardized tests don’t always reflect how hard kids are trying.” Louisa Strauss ’08, a lifelong private-schooler, also expresses doubts about the campaign, citing the harmful competition this policy may present as well as the distraction this reward may provide: the overall futility of the policy. “I mean, think about it: The more cell phone minutes kids have, the more time they will spend on their phones and not on their schoolwork,” she said. Ms. Matthews and her team have an answer for Strauss. “ Mayor Bloomberg is against cell phones in school on principle, but he decided that they wouldn’t go into the schools at first,” meaning that the kids will get minutes on their cell phones to be used outside of school. “We plan to get the
cell phones turned on for school at school,” said Ms. Matthews. Having school-friendly cell phones essentially means that the Department of Education will find a way to stream educational information onto the phones using digital technology. As of right now, the technology is not there, but for now, “kids use cell phones out of school, so they’ll still be excited about getting more minutes,” explained Ms. Matthews. Some see this as somewhat hypocritical as Mayor Bloomberg recently vetoed a bill that would allow students to carry cell phones with them to school. Ac-
cording to the bill the students would not be able to use the cell phones in school, but they would be permitted to have them during the school day for security purposes. Now however, it appears that the Mayor supports students’ using cell phones. Some question the ethical legitimacy of offering cell phone minutes as a reward. “I think there’s something slightly creepy about the Department of Education bribing kids to succeed with cell phone minutes and paying students who receive high scores on AP exams,” said Kirkland. Strauss voiced a similar concern: “The Department of Education is also involving itself in a place where it does not belong: how families choose to spend their money. Generally, parents pay their kids’ cell phone bills. I think it’s up to the parents how many cell phone minutes their kid gets a month. How is that the Department of Education’s responsibility?” Mr. Nichols said that there are better incentives that can be offered, such as “contests among teams, or special meals.” None of the educators deny that there are fundamental problems in the school system, reflected not only in poor test scores, but which also manifest themselves in failing grades and a dropout percentage of 38.9%, according to a
2006 study by USA Today. Reflected Mr. Nichols, “I acknowledge the great challenge that public schools face. That said, the problem with motivation is not going to be solved merely with special prizes, and the students who are barely hanging on in school probably won’t be more motivated once the incentive is removed, or if they never get the cell phone minutes, or whatever the incentive may be, in the first place.” Mr. Nichols asserts that incentives are not the only answer. If the Department of Education wants to make fundamental changes in children’s attitudes towards school and learning, they have to do more than offer cell phone minutes. “Great teaching, more than anything else, will ultimately inspire students to do their best.” Ms. Murphy agrees but also firmly supports better teaching as a way to both inspire students with negative attitudes about school and to improve test scores. “Kids tend to do better when someone is on their side, telling them that they can succeed, not just letting it all happen by chance and giving them money if and when it happens.” According to Ms. Matthews the large-scale plan to give out cell phone minutes as rewards for achievement on tests will begin in late January. Whether the controversy will have resolved itself by then is unclear.
Continuing Columbia’s Controversies:
University’s Expansion Plans Opposed by Harlem
By Kate Witteman ‘11
CONTRIBUTING WRITER Been to the Harlem branch of Fairway Market lately? This outlet of the all-purpose grocery store is in the area under negotiations for the expansion of Columbia University into its surrounding neighborhood. As Trinitarians, we are quite conscious of what goes on around us on the Upper West Side. So what does this mean for Columbia? Columbia has grand plans to branch out into the edge of West Harlem between 125th and 131st streets on Broadway west. Specifically, the schemes include 17 acres of academic and residential buildings, and space for the business and arts schools and the research labs. These efforts would take over 25 years to complete and cost approximately seven billion dollars. This expansion was not a new idea for the University. In 1968, students protested Columbia’s plans to build a gym in Morningside Park. However, this time, with the lesson learned, Columbia is doing a better job of planning this development. Inevitably though, there has been some backlash and resistance by the neighborhood locals. They protest this expansion, arguing that it will drive out small, lo-
“...there has been some backlash and resistance by the neighborhood locals.” cally owned businesses. However, some who live in the area are more afraid that this development will create a private enclave in the center of this industrial neighborhood. In spite of these objections, locals are keeping open minds and believe that most points in the expansion plan are negotiable. City council member Robert Jackson said to the New York Observer, “They laid a framework for negotiations. I’m looking at this with
open eyes and an open mind.” Furthermore, Columbia has promised to make efforts in improving the surrounding area with landscaping, a public school, and parks. Another important aspect of Columbia’s plans is the inclusion of public housing and “green” aspects. The University has said it would develop the new campus in accordance with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program, a very high set of standards. The plans look like they will become a reality. On November 26th, the City Planning Commission voted to approve the plan. Five years from now, Columbia students may find themselves taking classes right next to Fairway’s freezer section.