Deborah Meier founded the very popular Central Park East schools in East Harlem.
Deborah, with whom I used to blog weekly, is a pioneer of the small schools movement, a strong believer in public school choice, and an eloquent advocate of democratic education.
The CPE schools (I and II) have repeatedly asked the NYC Department of Education for space to expand.
But instead of allowing them to grow, Chancellor Dennis Walcott is placing a new and untried charter school in the space that CPE was hoping to win.
Just more evidence that there is no “competition” in New York City between public schools and charter schools.
When people talk about the power of competition, they overlook the districts like New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles, where the leadership is working for the other team.
No competition here. Our leader is throwing the game.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Don’t forget DC where DCPS and OSSE are rife with the privateer pirates.We were the springboard for Rhee and Deborah Gist (RI).
Diane, I so enjoy reading your posts! I’m a school board member in Nashville and would like to know more about the history of states where there has been a proliferation of charter schools. It’s my understanding that they have had great difficulty funding their public schools.
Jill Speering District 3 Board Member 615-562-5234 ________________________________
Read my last book. Charter schools were originally supposed to target only the least successful, hardest to educate students, the ones who had dropped out or were turned off. Now, not many do that. Charters create a dual school system of haves and have nots.
Having helped write the nation’s first charter law, and having helped start several of the first charters, I think this is not accurate. The first charter approved was an elementary Montessori in Winona, Minnesota. It served, and serves, a variety of young people. The first charter to open was a school in St. Paul, Minnesota for secondary students with whom traditional schools did not succeed.
From the beginning, the charter idea was to offer options to a variety of families.
Joe Nathan, it is a shame that charters no longer reflect the original intentions of their visionary founders. Now we see the proliferation of for-profit charters, charters run by a Turkish imam, no-excuses charters that fine or suspend students for minor infractions, nonprofit charters that pay their executives $300,000-$400,000, and charters created by entrepreneurs who see a chance to make money.
Some people who have started charters have badly mis-used the opportunity. No question. Sadly, same is true of some district educators and some union leaders. Here’s a recent example
http://www.wboc.com/story/21284795/former-teacher-admits-embezzling-433k-from-union
There also are some terrific district public schools, terrific district educators and terrific teacher union leaders.
Giving people an opportunity to create new public schools (like Central Park East or the schools within Julia Richman, or Friendship Academy or Higher Ground Academy) is a great idea. But it has to be monitored carefully – and sometimes the good idea, like democracy, is abused.
Actually, Diane, there are many charters that reflect the original vision of empowering educators, students, families and community groups.
A new book describes a few of them, as well as the very constructive response of some districts to empower the same group of folks. It’s been endorsed by among others, Linda Darling-Hammond and Deborah Meier, and is entitled “Trusting Teachers with School Success”
https://hometownsource.com/2013/03/06/a-book-about-trusting-teachers-draws-praise-from-educators-and-activists/
Joe, I have no doubt it describes a “few.” Does it mention the Gulen charters? Or the for-profit charters? Or the American Indian Charter School? Or the charters where kids are kicked out because they broke a minor rule three times?
The book I mentioned was designed to describe an approach to “trusting teachers” that will interest some readers of this blog. The book describes district schools such as the one Deborah Meier helped start in Boston, and the one that the Mpls Federation of Teachers helped start in Minneapolis. It also describes charters started by groups of local teachers and parents.
As to the composition of the charter movement, research presented last summer showed that 2/3 of the nation’s charter public schools are independent, not part of an education management or a charter management organization.
I hope that some folks will take a look at the Trusting Teachers book, which describes how some districts and some charter authorizers are allowing local teachers and parents to create new, innovative public schools.
NYC is in big trouble. StudentsFirst and other monied interests are pushing HARD to dezone districts to make way for easier closures and then charter schools. Uninformed parents are buying the lie that “choice” will make schools better. In my district, a predominantly poor/new immigrant district with a majority of English language learners, the DOE (read: Bloomberg) is pushing for closures/co-locations to make room for charters. Unfortunately we also have politicians in our district who are allowing school closures instead of demanding smaller class sizes and better resources to actually help schools succeed. One school deemed “failing” has 60% ELLs, over 90% free lunch, yet class sizes upwards of 32 students. Blooomberg’s plan to “help” the school? to reduce class size,? NO. To hire more teachers,? NO. To add art, music, and sports so the children love to comne to school?NO.The Bloomberg plan to “help” this school is to co-location ANOTHER school in the same, already crowded building. Brilliant.
This sounds so deliberate and probably payback. Walcott will never recognize excellence if it’s not in the mayor’s vision. And we all know how vindictive this mayor can be.
Wasn’t Wolcott responsible for the CPS slogan (Courtesy,Professionalism,Respect) emblazoned on NYC police cars in the mid-90’s? Wasn’t this to counter NYPD’s image of a “brutal” police force. Seems he forget that lesson now that he’s in power with “Boston” Mike.
PS 158 in District 2 of Manhattan is facing its own charter challenges. The community is begging for a new public middle school in the neighborhood as there is sure to be a shortage of middle school seats soon, but the DOE seems determined to place an unneeded charter school in the empty floors.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130212/upper-east-side/upper-east-side-parents-speak-out-against-charter-schools-at-ps-158
I have done documented research on fraud in LAUSD for over 20 years and billions have disappeared. LAUSD has way more charter schools per pupil than anywhere else. There are now over 260 in LAUSD alone. There is no accountability for any of them as is disclosed by the latest DOE OIG report on the total lack of accountability of charter schools at any level in Florida, Arizona and California with LAUSD being a named school district. This audit is DOE-OIG/A02L0002. The whole thing is out of control beginning with our privatizer president Obama and Sec. of Ed. Duncan who were both educational losers in Chicago a real look at their history will easily show. I even have Duncan’s letter to the California legislature promoting mayoral control lying about the financial condition of Chicago Schools and how it happened. No ethics there I can tell you. And when confronted in Pico Rivera he choked and 1/2 of the room left. This is a fact.
Some subscribers to Diane Ravitch’s blog might be interested in a recent post”The Contentious Controversy Over School Choice” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
*************************************************
ABSTRACT: Contentious controversies over school choice are exhibited in e.g.:
a. Eighty-one comments (as of 13 Feb 2013 08:15-0800) on Diane Ravitch’s (2013) blog entry “An Economist Explains the Problem with Choice” at .
b. Two long threads initiated by my post “Economist Kern Alexander Explains the Problem with School Choice” [Hake (2013a) at . On 13 Feb 2013 08:15-0800 the threads had grown to (a) over 40 posts on Phys-L list with OPEN archives at ; and (b) 26 posts on the Physoc list at (to gain access you may need to obtain a password by typing your email address into a slot).
c. Andrew Maul’s (2013)”Review of Charter School Performance in Michigan” at . The abstract reads in part: “The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University conducted an analysis of the differences in student performance at charter schools and traditional public schools in the state of Michigan. In contrast to the majority of prior evidence regarding charter effects in the U.S. which tends to show no impact, the study finds an overall small positive effect of being in a charter school. . . . . . . . even setting aside issues with the study’s methods, the actual magnitudes of the effects reported are extremely small.”
d. Gene Glass’s (2011) “Charter Schools: Making Public Schools Private” at . Glass ends with: “It is difficult to see that anything other than the White voting public’s desire to simultaneously cheapen public education and create quasi-private schooling for their children is driving, in its larger part, the charter school movement.”
e. Linda Darling-Hammond’s (2010b) “Restoring Our Schools” at . Darling-Hammond writes: “Race to the Top requires that states expand charters but fails to assure quality and ensure access, despite evidence from the largest national study to date (conducted at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution) that charter schools more frequently underperform than outperform their counterparts serving similar students; evidence from a UCLA study indicating that charters exacerbate segregation; and evidence from many studies that charters serve significantly fewer special education students and English-language learners.”
*************************************************
To access the complete 12 kB post please click on .
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles:
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs:
Academia:
Blog:
GooglePlus:
Twitter:
Facebook:
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 13 Feb 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “The Contentious Controversy Over School Choice,” online on the OPEN! AERA-H archives at . Post of 13 Feb 2013 11:23:04 -0800 to AERA-H and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake’sEdStuff” at with a provision for comments.
In my last comment all the URL’s were eliminated because I had surrounded them with angle brackets. Here’s a 2nd try:
Some subscribers to Diane Ravitch’s blog might be interested in a recent post”The Contentious Controversy Over School Choice” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
*************************************************
ABSTRACT: Contentious controversies over school choice are exhibited in e.g.:
a. Eighty-one comments (as of 13 Feb 2013 08:15-0800) on Diane Ravitch’s (2013) blog entry “An Economist Explains the Problem with Choice” at http://bit.ly/11r9xCJ.
b. Two long threads initiated by my post “Economist Kern Alexander Explains the Problem with School Choice” [Hake (2013a) at http://bit.ly/WIdRH5. On 13 Feb 2013 08:15-0800 the threads had grown to (a) over 40 posts on Phys-L list with OPEN archives at http://bit.ly/Ve9Sof; and (b) 26 posts on the Physoc list at http://bit.ly/Y7k7rg (to gain access you may need to obtain a password by typing your email address into a slot).
c. Andrew Maul’s (2013)”Review of Charter School Performance in Michigan” at http://bit.ly/WHiO6R. The abstract reads in part: “The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University conducted an analysis of the differences in student performance at charter schools and traditional public schools in the state of Michigan. In contrast to the majority of prior evidence regarding charter effects in the U.S. which tends to show no impact, the study finds an overall small positive effect of being in a charter school. . . . . . . . even setting aside issues with the study’s methods, the actual magnitudes of the effects reported are extremely small.”
d. Gene Glass’s (2011) “Charter Schools: Making Public Schools Private” at http://bit.ly/YXwZmO. Glass ends with: “It is difficult to see that anything other than the White voting public’s desire to simultaneously cheapen public education and create quasi-private schooling for their children is driving, in its larger part, the charter school movement.”
e. Linda Darling-Hammond’s (2010b) “Restoring Our Schools” at http://bit.ly/VSI9fy. Darling-Hammond writes: “Race to the Top requires that states expand charters but fails to assure quality and ensure access, despite evidence from the largest national study to date (conducted at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution) that charter schools more frequently underperform than outperform their counterparts serving similar students; evidence from a UCLA study indicating that charters exacerbate segregation; and evidence from many studies that charters serve significantly fewer special education students and English-language learners.”
*************************************************
To access the complete 12 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/YdSVsX.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 13 Feb 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “The Contentious Controversy Over School Choice,” online on the OPEN! AERA-H archives at http://bit.ly/YdSVsX. Post of 13 Feb 2013 11:23:04 -0800 to AERA-H and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake’sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/Y98lN6 with a provision for comments.
;
Diane,
There is a person who writes for the Boston Globe (Jim Stergios) about education, and he is a major proponent of school choice. He has very limited background in education, is head of the Pioneer institute in Boston, and claims charter schools are the way forward. I keep posting comments on his blog asking about his actual experience in education, and never get a response. I also get hassled by people who say I have no idea what I am talking about, but I am a teacher and I know they are not because I always ask them. They also call me a “part-time employee”, and a “union hack”. I think it is shameful the Boston Globe would allow someone like to take about education, don’t you? Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I was curious what you think about this…
The Pioneer Institute is a very conservative think tank whose raison d’être is school choice. The research evidence is clear that charters get the same results when they enroll the same kids, and many avoid students with disabilities and ELLs.
Diane,
I agree that Charters have often been able to “choose” their students persay, but in this particular case the reverse is true.
The Central Park East Schools have significantly lower ELL and SPED students compared to the district, while the charter has more. The CPE schools have an admissions criteria, but the charter school does not. Regardless of anyone’s beliefs on charters as a whole, it certainly seems that this charter school is operating in a manner that meets the needs of East Harlem, and not falling significantly below in serving the districts most critical populations. The same can not be said for the CPE schools, no matter how you position the argument.
That is what I figured. Thanks for clarifying, and for all you do for the preservation of public schools
I am a little confused here. Are the Centail Park East schools private schools? Are.they limited admission public schools? Who is allowed to attend those schools?
Central Park East schools are public schools. They are not private. They are not charter. All their teachers are members of the teachers’ union. They are part of the NYC Department of Education, subject to democratic control.
teachingeconomist, any child in New York City is eligible to apply to these schools, but a preference is giving to children in the schools’ home district and two adjoining districts. Families are required to tour and interview, and then a lottery is conducted among the applicants. Neither school’s webpage contains information about this process; make of that what you will.
Teachingeconomist,
To answer your question, YES, CPE has an admissions process. They require an interview then select students from that interview to be enrolled in the lottery. So yes anyone can apply (anyone can apply to Harvard to for that matter), but it is not open enrollment. If you don’t “pass” the interview, you don’t get into the lottery. This may be the reason ELL and SPED numbers are so low, as well as why they have such a low population of East Harlem residents.
But Diane, also answer the question about admission. Are they an admission based school, or are they open enrollment?
Central Park East is an open enrollment school. It is certainly not an examination school.
Is a school that requires an interview for entrance really “open enrollment”. Or is it open to only those who pass the interview? Lets all be honest with ourselves here.
Isn’t that typical for most NYC charter schools?
I will ask Deborah Meier to weigh in on what you are saying.
I have no idea if it is true or not.
I do know that the school is not run by private management, it does not pay charter-scale salaries (like the $300,000 plus that Eva gets), it has no board of hedge fund managers. It is a public school.
Interesting that in this case the public school has many of the same attributes of a charter school that are criticized here (low ELL and SPED students, bringing in many students from outside the community, entry by lottery, etc) while the charter school has many of the attributes praised here (high ELL and SPED student population, high percentage of students from the neighborhood, etc). Perhaps it is best not to pay too much attention to labels.
“Is a school that requires an interview for entrance really ‘open enrollment.’ Or is it open to only those who pass the interview? Lets all be honest with ourselves here.”
Paul — It’s my understanding that CPE requires that parents take a tour of the school. That’s a standard requirement at other NYC public schools that are either unzoned or offer a limited number of seats for students outside the catchment (Midtown West and PS 150 in Tribeca are others that do this). The purpose, as I understand it, is to limit the lottery to parents whose interest in that particular school is serious. It’s a transaction cost that is arguably unfair to parents who don’t have the time for tours, but it’s also arguably unfair to have lotteries filled with students whose parents are playing with several waiting lists and lotteries at once, and who hold up spots until the they get a better deal, usually at the last minute.
I haven’t heard about any “interview” process at CPE.
Flerper.
Insideschools states that CPE1 uses an interview process. This is a quote from insideschools about CPE2. Note the last sentence, “a pool of candidates is chosen”
“Parents must take a tour and fill out an application, and then the child visits the school. A pool of candidates is chosen and a lottery follows.”
I wouldn’t construe that as an “interview,” and I wouldn’t construe language about “choosing” a lottery pool as anything more selective than a list of students whose parents have done the tour and who have done the school “visit.” But I could be wrong.
CPE’s admission process goes like this:
1. Attend a tour of the school and fill out an application.
2. A lottery then selects students based on weighted slot availability: 40% for District 4, then the next major percentage for Districts 5 (Central Harlem) and 6 (Washington Heights/Inwood) then the remaining percentages for the rest of the city.
3. Students who are selected in the lottery are invited to the school for a multi-hour visit. The school invites a few more students than the slots available.
4. After the tour families have an opportunity to decline to attend; most of those who remain interested are invited to attend unless there is some specific reason to recommend that they consider looking elsewhere.
The school reflects the people who apply. Every year CPE 1 has over 15 applicants per available slot; often the number is above 20.
The school works with students with all levels of capability and education. Classrooms are fully integrated with students of varying ability working together. No child is asked to leave due to low test scores or any other “low performance”.
Wayne Collier
Parent
School Leadership Team
Central Park East 1
Let’s ask a broader question: does the DOE want CPE 1 to leave East Harlem? Does the DOE want to make it harder for East Harlem and Central Harlem children to benefit from the great experience that a CPE 1 education provides?
If that’s not the DOE’s goal, then it is hard to understand what the DOE is thinking.
CPE 1 and CPE 2 provide an excellent education. They make that available first and foremost to East Harlem students. Then they bring in students from all over the rest of the City as well. They integrate them into a tight-knit community. They support them well. They involve parents. And their graduates are well-respected and sought after by the middle schools here.
And they do this all as public schools, with no special treatment.
The charter school occupying the space is truly serving the needs of the East Harlem community, unlike a middle school for CPE. 96% of the charter school students are from East Harlem. 89% of its students qualify for free and reduced lunch, and 30% qualify for special education services. CPE Elementary, on the contrary, has less than half of its students coming from East Harlem, only 40% of its students qualify for free and reduced lunch, and its SPED population is less than 15%. So when making decisions about a public space for a public school, there is much more to it than what meets the eye…in fact, the Chancellor is changing the game by allowing for more school choice here in East Harlem, for the students of East Harlem.
Why not make more schools like CPE 1 and CPE 2 available to East Harlem, then? Do you think Harlem children suffer from being in school with children from all over the rest of the City? Do you think children who qualify for reduced lunches should not be allowed to go to a school with children who don’t qualify?
At CPE 1 and CPE 2 we believe there’s value in creating a community where people of all backgrounds learn to work together. We reserve a large fraction of the spots for children from Harlem–and then many, many families from all over the city apply for the remaining spots.
What is it about CPE 1 and CPE 2 that makes wealthy families beg to send their children to school with children from poorer families? That’s the question the DOE, and everyone on this blog, should be asking.
There are some inaccurate statements floating around here about CPE1’s admissions policy. CPE1 is a Public, Choice elementary school. That means that it does NOT receive any private funding and it is open to students in District 4, as well as to students from outside District 4. That is how Choice schools work. Interested parents can visit for a tour of the school. If they are interested in the school’s progresive, small school philosphy, they can fill out an “application”. The “application” is basically their contact information. No fancy essays or anything like that. Because there is such a high demand for CPE1, we get more applications than we can accomodate. Thus, the applications are put into a lottery system (I beleive common in NYC choice public schools). This lottery system gives priority to children in District 4. There are NO tests or requirements of that sort required for admittance to CPE1. In fact, we are philosphically against rating children by test scores. CPE1 is a diverse school with students coming from all over NYC to attend. Even so,60% of our students come from Harlem; when you add in students who live in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx, it goes up to 81%.
East Harlem Scholars Academy was started by East Harlem Tutorial Program which has been all over East Harlem since 1958. They have an immense pool of contacts in the community.
The proposal for East Harlem Scholars Academy II “identified an alternative plan should NYC DOE space in District 4 not materialize. The space is in a former Catholic grammar school in East Harlem. East Harlem Tutorial Program is in final stages of negotiation with the Archdiocese of New York to lease this space and if necessary, this building could house the school.”
This is a direct quote from the charter school’s proposal which can be found:
Click to access EastHarlemScholarsAcademyCSII-FullProposal-Redacted.pdf
They have the connections and the money to for other spaces so why are they trying to infringe on another school’s space???
Providing a CPE middle school would create much more choice for families in East Harlem–and choice is what the Department of Education is supposed to be all about. There is currently no progressive middle school available to Harlem families. Getting to pick from a bunch of nearly identical charter schools does not really constitute choice, in my opinion. CPE has been around for decades, and every year there is way more demand for spots in the school then there are available slots. Clearly, this is a type of education that parents very much want, and more spots should be made available. CPE2, the school that proposed the middle school expansion, was given an A by the DOE in the latest round of grading. It’s really puzzling, then, that the DOE would opt to give the space available in CPE’s building to a brand new, unproven charter school instead. This definitely doesn’t seem to be a decision based on what Harlem families want or either school’s track record. I’d also like to make the point that although families from Districts 4 and 5 are given preferential admission, one of the truly special things about CPE is that the students come from all over the city. It’s a microcosm of New York–a really special place.
The school that is closing is a middle school, that space should be for a middle school. The choices are so limited, and we don’t have time for another K-8 school to “grow” from my perspective. We are waiting to hear in April/May from the board of Ed as to which of the highly competitive spots in the already limited middle schools my daughter will be assigned. As far as choice in schools, it is highly competitive in the elementary and middle schools, but there are far fewer choices for middle school! What’s going on, Chancellor? We don’t need any school bashing or false statistics, we need some common sense with the Chancellor and the board of ed to be willing to make space (pay for space) for the schools needed! We know what it takes for students to succeed, small classes and a community that cares!
The charter school was started by the East Harlem Tutorial Program which was started in 1958. They have work all over East Harlem and have a lot of community connections.
The proposal for East Harlem Scholars Academy II “identified an alternative plan should NYC DOE space in District 4 not materialize. The space is in a former Catholic grammar school in East Harlem. East Harlem Tutorial Program is in final stages of negotiation with the Archdiocese of New York to lease this space and if necessary, this building could house the school.”
This is the direct quote from the charter school itself which can be found:
Click to access EastHarlemScholarsAcademyCSII-FullProposal-Redacted.pdf
The charter has the connections and the money to use another space. Why must they take space in a school that CPE is already in and which CPE can naturally expand into a middle school????
There is an alarming amount of misinformation in the posts above.
There is no admissions test at CPE, and the school’s population is heterogeneous in every respect; the admissions process is designed to create a balance of students, not to select the most “gifted.” The most important criterion for admission is that the parents desire a progressive education for their children. The curriculum that my son is experiencing at CPE is radically different from the traditional model that his brother got at a regular public school (also in East Harlem). There is more play, art, music, and movement incorporated into the school day, and my third-grader has yet to bring home a practice test for homework (his brother at this point in his 3rd grade year at his traditional school was doing nothing but filling in bubbles). Not all parents would choose this non-traditional approach, but those who do feel passionately that it is right for their child and their own educational values. No one at CPE feels that there is an either/or between the progressive middle school that we have been applying to start for five years and the East Harlem Scholars’ Academy, which is desired by other parents. THERE IS ROOM FOR BOTH, and BOTH are desired by parents in the community. Isn’t this what the much touted “school choice” is all about? But the DOE is acting with gross favoritism when it allows a brand new charter school to expand while the CPE’s application is rejected for lack of space.
Wayne,
By varying abilities and diversity, are you referring to CPE1’s “less than 1%” ELL population or CPE2’s 2.3% ELL population? The school is located in El Barrio correct?
We serve a broad variety of learners by integrating students with special needs, including ELL, in all our classes and activities. Our collaborating teachers work with students in integrated classrooms, so students of all abilities share the experience and learn from each other.
We’d be happy to have more English-Language Learners. We welcome and embrace them. Nearly a third of our staff is bilingual, and we do regular community outreach in Spanish.
Wayne, the fact that you are a member of the school leadership team, and thought it was okay to pose that question (about wealthy families begging to send their kids to school with kids of poorer families) says all we need to know about your philosophy. Wow. Wow.
My philosophy is that schools should be appealing to a wide cross-section of society, not just targeted at a single group. And that’s what we work hard to do at CPE 1.
CPE 1 has created and sustained a school that’s so good lots of people want to go there. It is integrated and diverse, racially and socioeconomically. Lots of people from all walks of life want to be there.
Now contrast that with the norm in this city. How many families from other neighborhoods are clamoring to get into schools in Harlem? Is it good that they are not? Should families from outside Harlem be told to stay at “their own” schools in “their own” neighborhoods? I don’t think that would be an improvement.
We do our best to bring people together in a diverse and integrated community. And we’d like to extend that model to serve more families.
Ok, Paul, I’ll bite. Tell me exactly what does it says about Wayne’s philosophy? That he is in favor of ethnic and socio-economic diversity? Are you against this? I thought we all agreed that separate is inherently unequal. Show us other schools you favor over the CPE schools. What is their diversity?
Crickets, Paul…..I hear crickets…
In regard to the CPE schools: some statistics, publicly available through the DOE.
In 2011, CPE I had 207 students from pre-K through 5th grade. 38% black, 24% Hispanic, 24% White and 4 % Asian. 19% Special Education. 94% attendance.
In 2011, CPE II had 224 kids from pre-K through grade 5. 44% Black, 26% Hispanic, 18% White, 3% Asian, 9% Other. 14% Special Education learners. 94% attendance.
It is also possible to compare these statistics with other NYC schools in terms of diversity (almost unmatched).
Wayne’s point is an excellent one. The CPE schools are an actual answer to the problem of segregation. Why don’t we have more phenomenal schools like this that people from all over the city would be clamoring to get into? Seems to make a lot more sense than forced integration. And certainly better than keeping everybody trapped in their own narrow communities.
The CPE schools boast some of the most diverse student populations in the entire city. Besides the beautiful racial integration that exists at the CPE schools, there are also religious, cultural, and socio-economic differences, PLUS a wide range of student ability, that make these schools among the most integrated in New York City. There were two reasons I sent my daughter to CPE1 — one was for its progressive teaching philosophy. The other? Its amaziing diversity.