| Proud Sponsor |
|
| News Sections |
|
|
| Membership |
|
|
| Features |
|
| Sponsored by |
|
| About the Smugtown Beacon |
|
|
| |
|
| RCSD Graduation Rate Dips to 46% -- What will the Pollsters Say? |
By: Aaron E. Wicks
|
Posted: Tuesday, March 9, 2010 8:40 pm
|
Rochester, NY (March 10, 2010) -- Mayor Robert Duffy could hardly contain a smile: Rochester' graduation rate, which had increased from 39% to 52% (with zero assistance from the Mayor) was about to take a turn for a worse. The March announcement of graduation rates for the class of 2009 across New York State showed Rochester had slid backwards to a 46% rate. Duffy, not surprisingly, pointed to this as further evidence that change is needed -- and soon.
At the same time, Rochester's Center for Governmental Research has announced a partnership with Metrix Matrix to conduct a survey of Rochester residents to gauge not only support or opposition to mayoral control but also the factors motivating their feelings. Duffy has reportedly already raised pre-emptive questions about the poll, noting that it is a mail survey in a city in which literacy rates are highly variable and educational attainment is low (curiously the Democrat and Chronicle reports that 27% of Rochester residents lack a highs school diploma or GED; the official census estimate is closer to 22%).
Duffy is clearly trepidatious about the CGR poll. CGR is a local "think tank" that tends to support local institutional elites. It is, in essence, the "Braintrust of Smugtown" -- if CGR says it, it must be true. Thus, a CGR-backed survey that shows a lack of support for Duffy's plans could take a great deal of momentum out of his push: he will need to change his rhetoric from acting as the leader of the rabble of Rochester to more paternalistic words (though some would say his words have been plenty paternalistic to this point). In addition, Duffy has noted that the poll could be of dubious merit because people cannot possibly have an opinion of mayoral control when the details have not yet been finalized (though this logic is a bit like saying "How can you oppose my hitting you in the face when I haven't told you if I will use an open hand or closed fist?").
In the spirit of objective journalism -- admittedly not this author's strength -- the Smugtown Beacon will provide some analysis BEFORE the results are in.
What proponents of mayoral control will look for
First, this poll has to be a much more appealing one to supporters of the mayor's plan. The other survey was funded by opponents, and while it was not fatally flawed methodologically, it nonetheless had a small sample, a questionable sampling approach and, as an interest-group funded survey, could not completely claim it was designed and implemented with objective interests at heart. This survey will be "cleaner" in that sense. It will survey 2,000 residents, expecting to receive in the neighborhood of 300-400 responses. This is an optimistic goal, but not unattainable, especially with a built-in plan for follow-up phone calls to urge responses.
If the results even show a slight majority in favor of the mayor's plans -- or at least a close division of opinion -- supporters of the mayor will have reason to cheer. Why? Because one argument against mayoral control is its rollback of voting rights for city residents as they will certainly lose their right to vote directly for the people who run their schools (and only their schools). If opinion is balanced when something as fundamental as voting rights are at stake, mayoral control supporters will be able to say "even without a detailed plan and even knowing that it will mean reduced voting power, residents are so desperate or change that they will support the mayor by a small majority [or, "are closely divided"]." While this is not an adequate justification to deprive anyone of their rights, rhetorically, it is a forceful argument.
More important than the bottom line measurement of support, however, supporters are going to look closely at what is motivating people's positions. This author has not seen the survey, but it presumably tests several of the arguments that have been made. If well-designed, it should ask residents about the voting rights issue, about whether they are concerned about accountability -- and whether a 7-member Board is as accountable as a single mayor, and also about their belief that mayoral control would be more likely to bring about the needed reforms in the district. Even if the baseline support for the mayor's position is not there in the public poll results, a strong showing on these measures could still provide proponents with evidence that the public agrees with them.
Of course, even the worst case scenario (overwhelming opposition to mayoral control) will not dissuade supporters of Duffy -- and really, it should not. Supporters of mayoral control, if they are genuine, should not care about polls. If mayoral control will truly lead to better schools and can somehow engage parents and residents even more than they currently are (both of which have not been conclusively shown to happen under mayoral control), then who cares if a poll shows apprehension? Good public policy should not be a matter of following polls, it should involve leadership, persuasion and finally -- and Duffy would be loath to forget this part -- delivering on promised results. If supporters of mayoral control can do that, the results of this poll will be a mere historical artifact.
What opponents of mayoral control will look for
Opponents will have a slightly different focus on the poll. It is likely that the poll will not strongly support their position. How do I know this? Think about it: a poll commissioned by some opponents yielded only a small majority in opposition -- and many people undecided. Under those favorable circumstances they received only a mild victory; under less favorable circumstances, it is difficult to imagine they would fare better.
Opponents will need to look closely at the methodology of the poll -- more so than supporters. As noted above, supporters of mayoral control prefer to cast themselves as leading a popular effort, but they are also comfortable with the paternalistic role. Opponents are less so -- much of their legitimacy comes from the belief that the public does not want to lose its voting rights and does not want to have their school governance changed simply because powerful people cannot get along. Yet if the poll shows popular support for the mayor, it makes it very difficult for opponents to continue to make their argument as convincingly (yes, opponents could be paternalistic too, but the Mayor and Joe Klein are much better suited to it).
Thus, opponents will need to focus on a few aspects of the poll:
1) Who was included in the sample? The sample included an original mailing of 2,000 residents, but from what universe were these 2,00 residents sampled? One source of names and addresses is a Board of Elections roster of registered voters -- but not every resident is registered. Other lists are available, but they have flaws as well. A representative from Metrix Matrix argued that the mail survey is better than a telephone survey because of the diminishing number of people who have landlines (and who answer them regularly). But the virtue of random digit-dialed telephone surveys is that they can truly capture everyone with a phone (even unlisted numbers). Lists of addresses are not complete and not entirely reliable. How they are collected is important. Opponents (and supporters, for that matter) should demand full transparency of the poll's methodology -- even before the results are known.
2) What role will response bias play on this issue? Response bias refers to the fact that some people will be more likely to respond to the poll because of their interest in the issue. For example, suppose supporters of mayoral control tend to be more educated and more inclined to perform "civic duty" types of actions (I don't know if this is true, it is merely a supposition). If this were the case, these types would respond at a higher rate, skewing the sample of completed responses and therefore skewing the results in favor of mayoral control. Even if you attempt to control the degree of bias by weighting the data or by trying to "balance" the sample by pushing for more responses from populations that are showing low response rates (i.e. certain neighborhoods, certain demographic groups), such weighting cannot fully eliminate this type of bias. Not enough is known about this issue to correct this bias -- and this survey is not sophisticated enough to address such sources of potential bias.
3) Is the survey design an unbiased one, or does it prime respondents toward one position or another? Again, this is an issue that can be addressed before any results are tabulated by making the survey public. Ideally, it would take one of two approaches: it would either ask the "for or against" question up front, and then follow it with follow-up questions about different sub-issues or it would provide a variety of pro- and con- issues, in random order before the "for or against" question, leaving that for last. If the key positional question is left to the end, and if it follows a series of arguments that strongly favor one side or the other, respondents might be primed to take the position that has been recently advocated in the survey. Of course, how the "for or against" question is asked will also be critical. According to Mayor Duffy, it would not be fair to ask "Do you support the mayor's plan?" because he claims the plan is unfinished. Yet the mayor has taken a position, and that position has some clear implications -- the issue is, which of these positions and implications will be part of the "big" question?
This being said, opponents of mayoral control cannot look at this poll solely on the basis of methodological sniping -- because, really, no one cares about polling methodology. Opponents will need to analyze the different factors that are driving opposition -- and support -- and craft their arguments around those that resonate most effectively. And in this, they might find some opportunity. One of the clear sentiments in the public is that Rochester's schools are not working. Duffy is claiming something is better than nothing. opponents can use the substance of the poll's results to describe the multitude of "somethings" that exist -- mayoral control is not the only potentially successful response. But time is running out for alternate proposals -- and the mayor is clearly calling the shots on this issues when it comes to the state legislative delegation. The real issue is mayoral control or no mayoral control -- everything else will wait until this issue is resolved.
A call for transparency
If CGR wants to truly play a constructive role in this debate, one that might ratchet down some of the rhetoric and that might even engage residents in the discussion on a broader basis, they should make the survey as transparent as possible. That means publishing the survey in its entirety, describing the methodology thoroughly -- and doing this before the results are out. The press release currently on the CGR website pays lip service to providing results that serve the public interest and that provide an "unbiased" measurement of public opinion (although anyone with survey experience knows that bias is inherent in surveying -- one can only try to minimize it or control for it, not eliminate it) -- but they need to go further. Too much Smugtown policy is debated behind closed doors, then spoon-fed to the public in the manner and amounts chosen by the powers that be. In this case, full transparency can provide both opponents and supporters of the mayor's plan with equal information to make their cases.
Anything less will surely lead to the results being hijacked by one side or the other and the reputation of CGR being tarnished for not being more forthright in sharing information about a critically important public policy issue.
We'd like to hear from you!
If you'd like to share your opinion on this article, please login (or create a membership login) and enter your comments in the "What's your opinion?" field. We ask that underneath your opinion, you provide your first and last name and the city and state in which you live. Only opinions that include full attribution will be approved by our authors. Thanks very much!
Click here to get email updates! |
|
Printer-friendly format
|
Member Opinions:
By: rwprism on 5/3/10
This years graduation stats are not hard to predict. Trend could have been guessed by anyone when the superintendent announced his 2 key policies: 1) Lower graduation standards at all high schools to state min standards. Obviously when you lower the standards, you get a jump in the number of students meeting those standards. Mayor Duffy pointed out recently that these students are unlikely to perform - even at MCC. The Mayor also sang the praises for Supertintendent Brizzard when he arrived, citing the 6% improvement in graduation rates. 2) Conclude that suspensions were handed out too easily and order principals not to suspend. Students understood that poor behavior was back in style. Borderline students who could have graduated began to focus on joining the trend. What will happen next? Behaviors are not getting better and we at the lowest standards possible already. I don't envy the poor slob who has to raise standards and get the students back under control. tami johnson rochester, ny
Login and voice your opinion!
|
|
|
