All NYC public schools must use city-approved programs to help struggling readers next year – Chalkbeat

Report on New York City’s Pre-Test Literacy Initiative and Its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Strategic Push for Literacy Outcomes

The New York City Department of Education has mandated a targeted test preparation initiative for elementary school students ahead of state reading examinations. This “sprint” aims to improve proficiency scores, a goal that aligns with the core tenets of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4): Quality Education. Specifically, the initiative seeks to advance Target 4.6, which aims to ensure all youth achieve literacy, and Target 4.1, focused on achieving relevant and effective learning outcomes. However, the methodology and focus of the program raise critical questions regarding its alignment with the broader principles of equity and inclusion central to the SDGs.

Program Framework and Objectives

Targeted Intervention Strategy

The directive outlines a specific framework for this short-term academic push:

• Target Group: Approximately 67,000 students in grades 3-5 identified as being near the state’s proficiency threshold. This represents 38% of the student population in these grades.
• Stated Goal: To achieve up to a 5% increase in English Language Arts (ELA) proficiency.
• Implementation Period: The program is scheduled to run from March 10 to April 22.
• Methodology: Schools are instructed to provide an additional 30 to 50 minutes of test preparation per week using designated digital platforms, such as i-Ready or Amira.

Analysis of Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Challenges to SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

While the initiative’s goal of improving literacy is commendable, its strategic focus on students “on the cusp” of proficiency presents a significant challenge to achieving truly equitable outcomes as defined by the SDGs. This approach has been criticized for potentially undermining key development targets:

1. Equity and Inclusion (SDG 10, Target 10.3): The strategy explicitly prioritizes students near the passing threshold over those who are furthest behind. This creates a risk of widening the achievement gap and contradicts the core principle of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, which calls for ensuring equal opportunity and reducing inequalities of outcome for all, particularly the most vulnerable learners.
2. Quality of Instruction (SDG 4, Target 4.1): Experts express concern that the initiative promotes narrow “test prep” over genuine, comprehensive literacy instruction. This raises questions about whether the program contributes to the “quality” aspect of education or merely prepares students for a specific assessment, potentially diverting focus from foundational skill acquisition.

Institutional Effectiveness and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The rollout and oversight of the program have highlighted operational challenges that relate to SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

• Planning and Resources: School leaders reported receiving the directive with little time for planning. Furthermore, the mandate was issued after school budgets were closed, with some principals being instructed to purchase required programs without allocated funds, straining institutional capacity.
• Top-Down Monitoring: The use of digital platforms to generate biweekly compliance reports has led to concerns about micromanagement. This approach can conflict with the development of responsive and autonomous local school leadership, a key component of an effective educational system.
• Policy Cohesion: The directive is viewed by some as disconnected from the city’s larger, systemic overhaul of reading curricula, suggesting a potential lack of strategic cohesion in achieving long-term educational goals.

School-Level Implementation and Responses

Divergent Approaches to the Mandate

Principals have responded to the directive in varied ways, reflecting different priorities and operational realities. Some schools have integrated the sprint into existing practices with minimal disruption. However, other school leaders have made a conscious choice to deviate from the prescribed focus. One principal reported prioritizing students who are “really, really, really struggling,” a decision that aligns more closely with the equity principles of SDG 10 than with the specific instructions of the city’s initiative. This highlights a tension between centrally mandated performance targets and school-level commitments to equitable education for all students.

Conclusion: Re-evaluating Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Sustainable Development

The NYC schools’ test preparation “sprint” represents an effort to produce measurable improvements in literacy, aligning with the surface-level objectives of SDG 4. However, a deeper analysis reveals significant conflicts with the foundational SDG principles of equity, inclusion, and institutional effectiveness. The program’s focus on a narrow band of students risks exacerbating inequalities, contrary to SDG 10, while its implementation raises concerns about the institutional accountability envisioned in SDG 16. For educational initiatives to be truly sustainable, they must prioritize quality, year-long instruction for all learners, particularly those most in need, rather than focusing on short-term gains for a select group.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 4: Quality Education

• The article’s central theme is the quality of education in New York City elementary schools. It discusses specific strategies, such as a curriculum overhaul and a test preparation “sprint,” aimed at improving student learning outcomes.
• The focus on literacy rates, reading proficiency, and state test scores directly relates to the goal of providing quality education.
• The debate highlighted in the article, concerning whether to focus on students near the proficiency threshold versus those furthest behind, touches upon the principle of equitable and inclusive education, which is a cornerstone of SDG 4.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

Target 4.1: Ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

• The article directly addresses this target by detailing the city’s efforts to improve “effective learning outcomes” for primary school students in grades 3-5. The entire “sprint” initiative is designed to boost performance on state reading tests, which are used as a measure of these outcomes.
• The stated goal to “achieve up to a 5% increase in ELA proficiency” is a clear attempt to improve the quality of education and its results.

Target 4.6: Ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy.

• This target is relevant as the article’s core subject is the city’s “aggressive literacy curriculum overhaul” and its push to improve reading skills.
• By focusing on foundational reading skills in elementary school, the initiative aims to ensure students achieve literacy, which is a prerequisite for meeting the broader goal for youth and adults. The article states, “Improving literacy rates is the top education initiative under Mayor Eric Adams.”

Indicators for Measuring Progress

• Proficiency Rate in English Language Arts (ELA): The article explicitly mentions this as a key metric. It cites a goal to “achieve up to a 5% increase in ELA proficiency” and notes that last year’s reading scores for grades 3-8 were at “49.1%.” This is a direct indicator for measuring learning outcomes (Indicator 4.1.1).
• Proportion of Students Receiving Targeted Support: The article quantifies the intervention’s reach, stating that “About 67,000 students were identified for the push… roughly 38% of public school students in grades 3-5.” This serves as an indicator of the effort being made to support students who are on the cusp of proficiency.
• Time Allocated to Additional Instruction: The directive for students to receive “30 to 50 minutes per week of additional practice” is a quantifiable input indicator. The article also mentions that digital platforms will “automatically generate biweekly reports” on time spent, which can be used to monitor the implementation of the educational strategy.
• Adoption of Mandated Curricula and Tools: The article notes that “all elementary campuses were required to use one of the three city-approved reading curriculums” and that schools are expected to use digital platforms like “Amira or i-Ready.” The rate of adoption and usage of these tools serves as an indicator of policy implementation aimed at standardizing and improving instruction quality.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: chalkbeat.org