Pathways or dead ends?

Almost two years ago, DOE paid some ridiculous sum to the Parthenon Group of consultants so they could inform us that there are too many over-aged and under-credited students in the system. (No kidding.)

The consultants recommended the Multiple Pathways strategy that DOE then adopted. Parthenon got themselves written up in Time magazine, declared victory and moved on to their next high-return-on-investment, data-driven challenge.

Multiple Pathways duly revamped GED, night school and alternative high schools, with the aim of capturing more kids in danger of dropping out and redirecting them to schools that worked for them. So how is it working out? Not so well, according to a new report by Advocates for Children of New York, “Dead Ends: The Need for More Pathways to Graduation.” [PDF]

Among the Advocates’ findings:

• 59% of the Young Adult Borough Centers (night schools) and 50% of the transfer high schools in its survey did not provide any services for English Language Learners or provided services that did not meet minimum legal requirements.
• 53% of YABCs do not serve students with special education needs
• 58% of transfer schools do not accept students with no credits
• childcare was lacking in 59% of YABCs and 35% of transfer high schools, which also failed to refer to outside childcare services or LYFE programs.

Now, since many students who are overage and undercredited are that way for a reason–typically because they don’t speak English well, have special needs or have kids of their own–this seems like an odd way to run a dropout-prevention program.

Peter Goodman blogs at Ed in the Apple about this sorry state of affairs, detailing the various “pathways,” but pointing out that it is very hard for kids to find their way onto them.

“There is no one place to call … a counselor may spend hours calling hither and yon … with no success!!” he writes. Sites have waiting lists, or restrictions, or they cannot meet the needs of the students who do find their way. Principals tell him they only want “highly motivated” kids since they are being measured on their graduation data. This is especially poignant, he says, since the mayor’s high-profile poverty commission specifically targets kids from ages 16-24.

Better make that highly-motivated, low-needs, English fluent and childless impoverished kids, apparently the only kind that need apply. Did DOE ever tell the mayor’s commission why kids drop out? Wasn’t mayoral control supposed to make agencies and initiatives that talk to each other? Maybe that requires another group of consultants.

 Print