March 30, 2015 - 15:56
Reading the NY Times article on Emmanuel has made me think about the roles of statistics in defining success. As you suggest, such numbers (the 58% to 70% increase in graduation rates, a 40% increase in African American students in AP classes, etc.) may point to successes within the school district. Certainly a twelve point increase in graduation rates is huge in such a big city in such a short amount of time. But it also makes me wonder who exactly were graduating in higher numbers. The article does not explicitly state amongst which groups graduation numbers increased. It also does not indicate whether or not the students in Advanced Placement classes actually do well in those classes. Taking AP classes is great, but if the students are not actually achieving or learning anything, it seems like a bit of a moot point. Furthermore, I find it problematic that increases of African American students in AP classes is considered as a measure for success, when the objective of AP courses is to do well on a high-stakes test at the end of the year.
I agree with you that schools can act as community centers in neighborhood and that Rahm Emmanuel seems to neglect the roles that schools often play in communities. I definitely think that is it important for Emmanuel to actually connect with the constituents and ask them what they would like to see in their communities. However, he seems to be more invested in the "tier" system of schools that indicate which schools are underperforming. This system seems problematic to me because it seems to be based off of tests that do not necessarily reflect the capacity of schools to educate their students. Until such a system based on high-stakes testing is deconstructed and the successes of the improving education is not quantified through limited statistics, I do not think that he or many other mayoral candidates will have incentives to actually listen to community members, especially those in lower-income, latino, and black communities.