Eva Moskowitz, founder of the Success Academy charter chain, complained that the first-page story in the New York Times by Kate Taylor was slanted against her “no-excuses” charter schools.
Chalkbeat reports:
Times education reporter Kate Taylor wrote a lengthy front-page story on Success earlier this week, which highlighted the network’s impressive standardized test-score performance and demanding school culture. The article included interviews with Moskowitz along with satisfied teachers.
Taylor also included anecdotes about children wetting themselves during practice tests, and interviews from former teachers who criticized Success’ tough discipline. The article also detailed Success’ excellent test performance.
Moskowitz acknowledged the article’s benefits in her email, saying the story was “the first time the Times has given Success even moderate praise or acknowledgement of what we are doing—and certainly never front-page status.”
But Moskowitz also criticized Taylor’s reporting methods.
“The reporter constructed a story around unverified but titillating anecdotes from anonymous sources,” Moskowitz wrote.
Apparently, Eva forgot that the New York Times published a lengthy and admiring article about her in the Magazine section last year.
I actually thought the article was fair and balanced. Kate Taylor reported the high test scores of SA and she reported what former teachers told her. The fact that they requested anonymity does not discredit their views. It shows that they are still afraid of the Wrath of Eva.
Blogger Perdido Street School writes about this article here. he says that Eva is “playing the victim,” but that the real victims are the children.
“But the victims in this tale are the children soiling themselves at their desks because they’re too scared to go to the bathroom during the all-mighty Sucess test prep.
“The victims in this tale are the children sent to “effort academy” (i.e., detention and extra test prep) because their eyes didn’t snap to attention quick enough when one of the teachers snapped her fingers.
“The victims in this tale are the children who are meant to feel “misery” when their teachers feels they’re not trying hard enough.
“The NY Times article did read like something out of Dickens, as I wrote when I first posted about this story.
But that’s not because the author, Kate Taylor, was making things up or “slanting” the piece, as Eva charges.
“That’s because Success Academy is a Dickensian nightmare where the children are subject to stress, misery and physical and emotional abuse.”
And there is an amazing link at the end of the post, announcing that Campbell Brown and Governor Andrew Cuomo are hosting a fund-raiser for Eva’s charters. Tickets start at $1,500, tables at $15,000. Cuomo will be the keynote speaker. “The event will be held April 20 at Cipriani 42nd Street in Manhattan, and will be co-chaired by Success board members Campbell Brown, Daniel Loeb, Joel Greenblatt, and Regina and John Scully.”
Success Academy charters don’t have to worry about Cuomo’s punitive teacher evaluation plan, because their teachers turn over so frequently.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
They should do a comparison between the methods used in the more middle class SA schools and the original SA schools. I have heard that the methods used at the SA schools depends on the type of students and their parents attending. I would like more facts on this.
This seems obvious from the comments by the Success Academy parents themselves. One thing is true — the suspension of Kindergarten and first graders at the middle class SA schools is a fraction of the suspension rate of those young children at their earliest schools. The school profiled suspended 19% of its students the last year data was submitted. Many of the Success Academy schools that have mostly low-income students have those kind of astonishing out of school suspension rates — even when they were ONLY K – 2nd grade! Compare those rates to the high-income Success Academy schools. There is no good reason why some other alternative to out-of-school suspension can be found for minor transgressions. And if 19% of the kids at Success Academy are really doing the kinds of things that Eva Moskowitz implies when asked about suspension rates — throwing chairs or hitting other kids — then there is something very wrong with how they are being taught. But frequent suspension is the ideal way to make a child’s parents “get the message” that the school is not the right fit for him. If there were frequent suspensions AND a very low attrition rate, then perhaps the suspensions work as “discipline”, but in fact, lots of students don’t seem to make it to the older grades in the schools that serve primarily at-risk students.
Middle class children are more likely to conform to middle class norms. The kids I teach spend all day explaining to me why my thinking is wrong. Their perspectives are totally different from mine and rightly so. I may as well have grown up on a different planet. The problem arises when I attempt to impose my world view on them without any justification.
Watch this video and see Eva duck the question about whether her charter chain’s lotteries self-select parents who are more involved, who are more upscale, and who deliver easier-to-educate children to Success Academy schools: (why, that’s “unknowable”… doncha know?)
In the process of answering, Eva inadvertantly lets slip the selective outreach she engages in to attract a more desirable cream of students… note the graphics superimposed as she talks.
NOTE: she was being interviewed by a friendly source—the union-hating libertarian REASON TV.
My favorite part of the video is when the Eva’s charter shill Jeremiah Kittredge condemns public schools with the claim that that “over 50% of public schools serve a less-than-average number of special ed. kids.”
Yeah… that’s the definition of “average”, as the video points out.
Hmmm… what other brilliant defenses will Kittredge, Eva, and their ilk be making and publicizing next?
(Here goes my audition for THE ONION!)
—————————-
Re: teachers’ attrition & the longevity of TFA teachers (the vast majority of whom leave after two years, three at the most… RINSE & REPEAT ad infinitum) –
KITTREDGE: “Oh… Attrition Schmmattrition. The numbers don’t lie, and they back us up here. An impressive result from a key study indicates that up-to-49% of our TFA Corps Members staffing our charter schools have longer-than-average teaching careers, and remain in the classroom longer than their fellow TFA colleagues. In turn, our charter scholars reap the benefits of this selfless dedication.”
or
“And what about the sky-high attrition among unionized public school teachers and THEIR career length? Nobody ever talks about THAT. Is their record so much more impressive? A damning statistical analysis reveals that over 50% of teachers in unionized schools leave teaching and abandon their students, on average, earlier than their fellow unionized teachers. Just think of the resulting negative impact that is then visited upon their students. Shame on them! The system is broken!”
– – – – – – –
re: student attrition –
EVA MOSKOWITZ: “We’re extremely proud of our record on this issue, and never moreso than on Graduation Day. To see the glowing satisfaction on the faces of our SUCCCESS ACADEMY scholars and parents makes all that we do so worthwhile. Indeed, we’re proving those cynics wrong, as the data incontrovertibly shows that a whopping 100% of our Success Academy scholars who are not kicked… err… ‘counseled out’ prior to Graduation Day actually walk across that stage to get their diplomas. I mean, come on! 100 PERCENT??!!! You can’t do any better than THAT!”
– – – – – – –
re: co-location –
EVA MOSKOWITZ: “This so-called ‘co-location crisis’ in NYC schools is way overblown by our detractors. Indeed, 100% of the public schools that do not yet have a charter school co-located on their campus—and there are hundreds of them, mind you—report ZERO percent of the problems typically associated with charter school co-locations. Why aren’t our critics reporting this fact?”
– – – – – – –
re: charter school leaders’ refusal to pay rent for the public school buildings—originally built and now maintained by taxpayers—that the charters do/will occupy –
KITTREDGE: “Look, this is just Business 101. It’s a basic market principle: the more you SPEND, the less you HAVE… so how can you then charge us rent, and steal money from the education of poor children? Didn’t you see our TV commercials with all those adorable Charter School kids? How can you do this to them?”
– – – – – – –
re: enormous Charter industry executive & administrator salaries… in the mid-six-figures (i.e. Kittredge, Eva, Dave & Mike at KIPP, Deborah Kenney, etc.) –
KITTREDGE: “Look, we don’t overpay our top people. Across the city, we see it again and again… and this needs to be reported more… over 50% of charter school executives and administrators take home a less-than-average salary in comparison to their fellow charter school administrators and executives. The enormous amount of money saved then goes to the classroom, and to meet the needs or our scholars. Why can’t our critics see this, then get off this topic, and find something new to whine about?”
– – – – – – – –
re: intensive test-prep for standardized tests, sometimes two hours or more a day (N.Y. Magazine reported this, along with a comment from a Success Academy administrator proudly describing the students as “little test-taking machines”) –
EVA MOSKOWITZ: “”Look, what’s wrong with a little practice before a standardized test? We make it fun, and it’s not even that much to begin with. Our tracking of our scholars shows that an impressive 50% or more of our students spend a less-than-average time doing drill-and-kill test prep compared to their fellow Success Academy scholars. That frees up time for … what, exactly… oh… I dunno… I forget… “
Eva’s teachers aren’t subject to Cuomo’s draconian teacher evaluation system because they have been carved out of it by Cuomo. This despite the fact that they claim increased freedoms in return for increased “accountability”. What accountability?
Funny, as a parent of a sixth grader at Harlem East Middle School, the experience of my child has been an overall positive one. The kids feel safe and have genuine love for their teachers and are happy to go to school in the morning. I have never heard of a child wetting him/herself at the middle school level due to anxiety or for any other reason. I concede that the kids don’t LOVE test prep but excellence requires hard work and that message has been consistent throughout their educational experience and the scholars recognize the value in that (as do I). As for incentives… adults perform for incentives everyday. We chose to call it a paycheck in the adult world.
Bottom line: Success Academy is not the appropriate placement for every child. Education should never be “one size fits all”. This is why parent choice is important. Unhappy teachers leave. Happy ones stay. Dissatisfied parents un-enroll their kids. Satisfied parents re-enroll every year. Having a choice is a marvelous thing.
Don’t cry for Eva. Her hedgeucators will take care of her. Poor baby.
Doesn’t sound like a place for any child.
Neither is my local zone school
” I concede that the kids don’t LOVE test prep but excellence requires hard work and that message has been consistent throughout their educational experience and the scholars recognize the value in that (as do I).”
You’re confusing high test scores with excellence.
No actually I’m not. By the way, have you ever met any student of this charter network? You should refrain from assuming that these kids are only proficient at testing. They are remarkably well rounded. It is not the best placement for every child; however, the great majority of them are happy, thriving academically, socially and are emotionally sound and mature.
I’m happy to have dedicated my life to teaching those un-excellent children who aren’t as good as your kids since they don’t ‘get it’. After they are driven out in this nouveau segregation scheme of Eva’s I’ll be happy to take them in my all-are-welcome public school.
“No actually I’m not.”
Um, actually, you are. You’re the one who said that test prep is hard work toward excellence. Test prep has nothing to do with excellence. Anyway, if you don’t like my focus on test scores, then talk to Eva, because that’s all she cares about. (But if you do talk to her, be prepared to find another school quickly because Eva won’t like it too much.)
“I concede that the kids don’t LOVE test prep but excellence requires hard work and that message has been consistent throughout their educational experience and the scholars recognize the value in that (as do I).”
My statement is referring to hard work in general… clearly you missed that point. So, what’s the solution here Dienne? Do we continue to argue our points which are clearly divergent? What’s your proposed solution?
Your statement started with “I concede that kids don’t love test prep, but….” Everything after that by necessity relates to “test prep” based on the way YOU structured your sentence. If that’s not what you meant, you can rephrase your sentence – it’s understandable, we all mis-state ourselves occasionally. But don’t accuse me of misunderstanding what YOU wrote.
Again, Dienne, we are nitpicking a sentence when there’s clearly a bigger issue at play. Criticism isn’t the answer. What is your proposed solution?
Glo,
Most people here have their minds made up about all charters, and SA in particular. I’m glad you like it there and that your children are doing well. That’s what any human being without a specific agenda would/should say to you as well.
I would say that most people here believe that public money should be spent on public education and that the public has a right to demand a transparent system of accounting for the public money being spent.
I would say that most people here believe that if a school is a public school, that takes public money, then the school should not be allowed to cherry pick children in order to play a numbers game touting excellence because of the results of an extremely dubious testing agenda. Being able to pass the Pearson standardized tests, after months of test prep, says next to nothing about the excellence of the teaching and learning that goes on in these charter schools.
I would say that most people here believe that the corporate players pushing the privatization of public education and the destruction of the teaching profession, are not in this game for the good of the kids. They are in it for the profit.
I would say that a parent who cares only about herself and her own child, regardless of the detrimental effect that her concern has on the broader community, is probably not a reliable source of information about the larger school community where her son attends school.
Betsy,
Yes, public money should be spent on public education, and charter schools are public schools. Most on here deny that despite the law. Also, I posted SA financials elsewhere on here. They are public information. The schools are subject to FOIL as well.
I would be careful about using “cherry pick”. Nobody has accused SA (or other charter in NY) of selecting students or running an unfair lottery. If you’re talking about which parents enroll their students in charter or about attrition, that’s a different story, but “cherry pick” implies something more.
Do you have any data to back up the idea that passing standardized tests says “next to nothing” about the teaching and learning in these schools? I know the conventional wisdom here is that the tests mean nothing, but that doesn’t pass the sniff test. Also, SA has a longer school day and school year, so I guarantee their kids get more instructional time even with the test prep.
Yes, some people support charters because they want privatization or want to weaken unions, but that is a minority, and I can tell you that very progressive charters don’t have a problem with taking their money to spend on kids.
Despite lots of smoke, nobody has shown anyone “profiting” from non-profit charters in New York. The closest anyone has gotten is that some investors (mostly banks) can take advantage of the New Market Tax Credit to finance buildings in low income areas (charters, hospitals, etc.), but this is a small amount of money and not even the same people. Believe me, charters would rather be able to go to the bond market with government underwriting when they have to finance buildings. This is a non-issue for most NYC schools
As for Glo and her lack of concern for the “detrimental effect” she and her child are having, do you feel the same way about those who move out of the city so their children can go to a suburban school?
Also, we don’t know anything about Glo’s situation, so assuming she would have the option of moving or paying private tuition is pretty presumptuous.
John,
Diane Ravitch has unilaterally stated ( a few days ago) that Charter Schools are private schools. I have no idea how she justifies that statement.
But she is wrong and you are right: charters are public schools because they are not allowed to charge tuition and must admit one and all who apply just like any public school. Private schools charge tuition and reserve the right to accept or deny admission to any student applicant.
Of course charters schools are funded by the public school system, but generally they get less money per student as compared to the public schools.
If the charter school is over subscribed, they must use a lottery system to select. No cherry picking is allowed. Cherry picking concept is just a creation of a fact by a few disgruntled teachers and their leadership.
One must remember that one can have his/her own opinion but is not allowed to create his/her own facts.
Raj,
I’d be careful about “must admit one and all who apply just like any public school.”‘ Most charters don’t admit in all grades, and many do not “backfill”‘ meaning they don’t accept students later in the year. SA does both of these things.
Charters that do this say it wouldn’t be necessary if traditional public schools had more discipline and didn’t socially promote, but even if they’re right, the fact that traditional schools will always have to accept anyone who shows up makes the schools not directly comparable.
There are some charters, such as New Orleans and Camden, where the chaters are meant to play by the same rules as district schools. I believe they will outperform, but time will tell.
Raj,
I have written again and again on this blog why charter schools are not public schools. When challenged in court over their unfair labor practices, their defense is that they are private contractors, not public schools and thus not subject to state law. When challenged before the NLRB for fighting a union, their defense was that they are not public schools. When a pair of charter founders in California were charged with misappropriation of public funds, the California Charter School Association filed an amicus brief defending them and said they should not be convicted because they are not public schools subject to the same state laws. Charters have sued to block state audits on the same grounds. They convinced me. They are not public schools. The case citations are in my last book, “Reign of Error.”
Diane — I assume you already know this, but I’ll say it anyway. What charter schools have argued in these cases is that they are not political subdivisions. They have not argued that “they are not public schools.” It’s true that (most) charter schools are run by private corporations that are exempt from many of the laws that govern traditional public schools. But everyone has always known this.
FLERP, the charters have argued that they are not “state actors.” Public schools are state actors.
Diane,
If charter schools were the same as traditional public schools in every way, there’d be no sense in having them. We educate public school students with public school dollars and therefore are public schools.
If that’s the test, how were you ever under the impression that charter schools are public schools? You don’t need to hear a charter school say it to know that private corporations that manage services akin to government contractors are not state actors. It’s self-evident.
John,
Thanks, I will try to be more precise in the future. I learned something from you today.
John
The fact that you want to nit pick over the word cherry pick says much about the games you like to play.
Betsy,
Words are important, and word choice in these discussions is frequently used to mislead or to gloss over details.
Watch this video and see Eva duck the question about whether her charter chain’s lotteries self-select parents who are more involved, who are more upscale, and who deliver easier-to-educate children to Success Academy schools: (why, that’s “unknowable”… doncha know?)
In the process of answering, Eva inadvertantly lets slip the selective outreach she engages in to attract a more desirable cream of students… note the graphics superimposed as she talks.
NOTE: she was being interviewed by a friendly source—the union-hating libertarian REASON TV.
Raj,
Which charter schools admit one and all who apply? My school is full of children charter schools would never consider. We have children with severe special needs, newly arrived ELLs and behavior issues galore. Please end this ridiculous discussion of the lack of cherry picking at charter schools. Our doors are open every day of the school year. Do charter schools accept students in April?
NJ Teacher,
You said, “My school is full of children charter schools would never consider”.
In fairness, charter schools don’t get to “consider” students at all. They are first come, first serve, or a lottery.
You are right that they have fewer students with severe special needs and fewer newly arrived ELLs because those student’s families don’t opt for charters.
I disagree re having fewer students with behavior issues. Many times, that’s the reason that the parents choose a charter.
Also, re admitting during the year, some do and some don’t, but you are right that they are not required to.
John, since charter schools don’t enroll as many children who are ELL and special education—as you admit–, comparisons with public schools are meaningless and unfair, don’t you agree?
Diane,
“John, since charter schools don’t enroll as many children who are ELL and special education—as you admit–, comparisons with public schools are meaningless and unfair, don’t you agree?”
Direct comparisons of passing rates without any caveats are clearly unfair. But, I don’t consider comparisons meaningless. If you compare results for various subpopulations, or compare results accounting for other factors, there is valuable information to gain.
Anyone who looks at passing percentage without accounting for attrition and demographic differences shouldn’t draw any conclusions from that.
There’s plenty of data out there that looks at longitudinal data. While there are still things like peer effects to consider, the data is much more directly comparable.
@ Glo
At what price that people in controlled position and people in submissive position are willing to trade off their DIGNITY for a so-called SUCCESS?
Your conclusion is ONLY appropriate, THE BIG IF is that all charter or voucher schools DO NOT loot PUBLIC MONEY FUND for their own selfish, NOT-transparent, and political gain.
It is also FUNNY that in a real adult world, all corporate businesses work together to rob people without any hesitation in the name of SUCCESS without a slight concern of the well-being for workers and their families.
For instance, in general, manufacturers bully workers over wages and benefits coverage. Their earnings after all dutiful taxes cannot cover their roofs over head, food in stomach, medication for stresses, gas and insurance for cars and residence, tuition fees for education, money for charity and fundraising either political or social causes…
Today, the 21st century and 5000 years ago, what is a difference between savage and civility if SUCCESS is more weight than DIGNITY? Back2basic
The problem with your statement is that Success is basically running as a private school only with public money (minus public school rules). Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for your “choice”. If you want your child out of the public schools, then pay for it.
Glo:
You have stated your point very well as a parent of a child attending a charter school. Your opinion is based on fact and is commendable.
There are many parental reviews (Internet) about Success Academy Charter Schools which provide a glowing report of their children’s performance in these schools.
The people who comment here do not have any children in these charter schools. They have no idea what the students in these schools feel, love, learn or benefit. All they know is that they do not like any and all charter schools. They will never accept any good views of any charter school by anybody, because they have closed their minds to reasoning.
Good luck to you and your child.
Raj:
You do not know that Glo’s opinion is based on fact. Her story is obviously written anonymously and can not be verified. No one here knows if there is really a Glo with a 6th grade son in a Success Academy school.
In order to reason, one must be presented with reasonable information. What we have here is conflicting information. But it really doesn’t matter whether or not there is a Glo with a son in 6th grade who likes going to a Success Academy school, because that is not what the conversation here is about.
So what if a relatively small number of parents are satisfied and believe that their child benefits from attending a charter school. Over 90% of the children in this state are being hurt by the laws that have been set in place that use charter schools to defund public education and destroy the teaching profession. That Glo only cares about her own child is the unreasonable part of this discussion.
Raj, As a taxpayer I should know what goes on in charter schools. As a public school parent, I should know that if charters insist on comparing themselves to my kids’ traditional schools, then those charters should be playing by the same rules as public schools. The fact is that they are not. If charters want to do things privately, fine. But hey shouldn’t get a dime of public school money if they don’t play by the same rules. And they should be humble enough to admit that the deck is stacked in their favor and not brag that they are better.
Raj, I find it interesting that one argument of Reformers is that you do not need to be a teacher to criticize and judge teachers. But when teachers criticize the educational ideas of Reformers, the teachers are dismissed and marginalized as you do. I seems teachers would have a pretty good perspective on teaching, but in the Reformer world, perhaps not. So now, who has closed minds?
“Neither is my local zone school.”
And, Glo, what is that “local zone school”? Name names!
Eva may not be happy with the “Times” depiction of her school. Thousands of teachers are unhappy with the false narratives that have been spun about public education, public teachers and unions. Teachers are unhappy about being scapegoated and blamed for all the woes of the poverty and underfunding. Teachers are unhappy giving students hours of mindless tests that serve no educational purpose. Many more teachers are unhappy after being VAMed out of a career, especially when every knowledgeable voice is stating that whole notion is based on false metrics. Public teachers have a lot more to be unhappy about than Eva, especially when the governor of the state campaigns against them and their efforts. Governor Cuomo wines and dines with wealthy charter school school supporters while he turns a deaf ear to the concerns of parents and students in New York.
Amen…It is happening across the nation and hardly anyone is raising a finger to fight it.
I totally agree with you. Those facts have never been in question. The system is clearly broken.
Nope, it’s fixed. By the likes of Eva, in bed with Cuomo.
Dienne, how are your efforts to unionize the staff and install staff-friendly work rules (no icky stuff like recess or lunch duty) at your children’s private school coming along? Have you made your annual donation to your zoned school’s general fund to replace the per-student funding you have taken away from it?
Tim, I’ve said it before, but perhaps you weren’t listening. If the teachers at my daughters’ school ever feel the need to organize a union, I’m all for it and I’ll help in any way I can. But I haven’t heard any of them express such a desire yet.
And I don’t really think “per pupil funding” works quite the way you think it does. My daughters’ public funding has not been transferred to their private school, unlike the charters that you support.
Given your ongoing interest in the matter with respect to public schools, that stance is a cop-out. You need to start the conversation about unionization. Not for them, mind you, but for your own kids. They deserve the very best, and that means teachers who among other things are guaranteed due process, a long duty-free lunch, and a prep period within the school day.
Public schools are funded on the basis of how many heads there are to count, period. Your kids’ absence from their zoned district school is costing the zoned district school money, regardless of whether they go to a charter, magnet, unzoned, private, or home school.
Tim, in what school type (public, private or charter) and what subject/grades do you teach?
Duane, I am not a teacher. I was educated in traditional public schools for K-12, and my children attend traditional NYC DOE district public schools.
The public school system was not broken before the corporate led and fed “school choice” scam was started.
Tim, re: your dig that Dienne should promote unionization of her child’s private-school teachers. You seem to be saying that a pro-union stance for public schools is hypocritical if not also promoted for private schools. As a former private school teacher, I accepted 2/3 p.s. wage & modest benefits in exchange for an ideal teaching environment: I was free to design my own curriculum; parents paid for the syllabus I selected; students tended to be cream-of-the-crop, & regardless, parents & kids were highly motivated due to high tuition. I did not need union protection because I worked in a small & close-knit environment where headmaster observations were frequent, supervisor provided mentoring & support; parent & student feedback on my performance were immediate. And I was blissfully free from federal and state mandated curriculum/ assessment du jour.
You also posit that private-school parents siphon $ from p.s. by virtue of local p.s. funding based on enrollment numbers. This is simply false. Dienne pays the same property taxes into public-school coffers as anyone else on her block, and chooses to pay private tuition on top of that. Her taxes go into the same pool in the same percentage, perhaps benefiting other ps students elsewhere, but nonetheless benefiting public schools to the same degree as ps parents on her block.
Depending on the school district and the state, Tim, most of a school district’s funding comes from local property taxes, which we all pay whether we have children in the school or not. Yes, state funding may be reduced, but it does not (or didn’t until recently) follow the student to their private school. I guess in some states now, I could practically open a charter or voucher school in my basement. Reports out of Florida seem to indicate that I could make a pretty good living off being an educational entrepreneur.
Sorry, Tim, but I happen to think that grown adults are capable of deciding when, and if, they need to unionize. Again, if any of the teachers at my daughters’ school feel that they need to unionize to get the things you mention, I will happily support them.
But I guess being a charter supporter, power and control and making other people’s decisions for them is all you understand.
Surely you’re kidding (or projecting), Dienne. I believe in giving disadvantaged families as much choice as possible, whether it’s a charter school, a voucher plan like the DC Opportunity Scholarship, magnet schools, or large-scale rezoning (like Louisville, Montgomery County, or the late, lamented plan in Wake County). I generally support any measure that fights the damaging effects of residential-school segregation.
You demand that every child be educated at the school for which they are zoned, and that nothing should affect the employment status of adults working in school buildings.
And you think *I* want to control people and make decisions for them? You’ve got it completely, painfully wrong.
That’s good to know Chris in Florida. Hopefully you are making a difference in the lives of the children that you educate. No one is alleging that Success kids are perfect. No one is criticizing the teachers who make a difference despite the roadblocks and difficulties that present. In that same vein I hope that you can appreciate that in every district there are not teachers who care to make a difference or even schools that perform up to the lowest expectations. Kids should not be the victims of being tethered to schools that fail them. Instead of being critical… what’s the solution here?
In my opinion, the solution is HONESTY. I used to support Success Academy for all the reasons you do — I believed it was helping students with failing public schools get a great education.
Then Success Academy changed its modus operandi — and I suspect it was to mask the high attrition rates in their earliest schools where they didn’t seem to want to keep any child who struggled under their system. I watched Success Academy insist that it needed space in wealthy District 15, despite asking for a charter in District 13. When parents started questioning it, Eva Moskowitz claimed there was a great demand for the school but there was not. (She seemed to have talked to a few wealthy parents in Cobble Hill who were afraid they’d be shut out of their overcrowded school.) But since she had claimed demand, she then proceeded to manufacture it by hiring young people to canvas residents to get people to sign a petition for “a new school”. Most of them had no idea what they were even doing. Another far more ethical charter had already avoided a space battle at that school and rented their own space. But that did not suit Success Academy. It seemed she couldn’t “win” unless it meant taking resources from public schools, and since Mayor Bloomberg’s DOE did whatever she asked, she got her space. And immediately dropped priority for students zoned for failing public schools! Somehow, priority needed to go to the residents of a school district that had one of the highest % of affluent students! Same thing happened in very wealthy District 2 Manhattan. There she opened TWO schools where district residents got priority. They may have had short wait lists for people who lived in District 2, but that didn’t stop Ms. Moskowitz from asking for a THIRD school in District 2. Meanwhile she has exactly ONE in District 7 in the Bronx, where she has long wait lists and there really is a need for a terrific and well-funded alternative to the public schools.
Why would she do this? I can only think of two reasons: 1. To lower her attrition and suspension rates. If she opens up more schools in affluent neighborhoods, the school will have less than half (and even less than 1/3) low-income students. Since she doesn’t seem to need to suspend the middle class students the way she does her low-income ones, and the middle class ones seem to stay instead of large cohorts mysteriously disappearing, it allows her to pretend she is lowering attrition and suspension rates (of 5 and 6 year olds!) because she will talk about “averages” across her network. and 2. Her well-heeled funders don’t just want to create good schools for at-risk students who have been failed by public schools, they want to undermine ALL public schools. And the best way to do it is to set up a competing school that is given all the bells and whistles their money can buy and caters to well-educated parents by promising special attention to their “gifted” students and none of those pesky “difficult” ones that she can encourage to leave her school. Since she wants to keep those affluent parents, the culture at her schools with high numbers of middle class and upper middle class students is far more gentle then what the low-income students in her earliest schools experience.
If Eva Moskowitz was honest, she would say “I can only educate a very small number of at-risk students in my school — it is not for all of them and I make no claims that I can do something that public schools are failing at. The schools that do try to educate these kids need MORE funding and small class sizes and the fact that our schools get high test scores is helped tremendously by our ability (and willingness) to weed out the kids who don’t “fit” in our system. And unfortunately, we have found that more at-risk students don’t fit than middle class students. Instead of changing our schools to try to help more of the at-risk students, we are simply going after the middle class market instead. So please do not use my schools to pretend that the reason public schools fail is because union teachers don’t care. The students in failing public schools need lots of resources that the state should be providing if they want them to succeed. My school works best for middle class students and a few low-income students with dedicated parents who are willing to go the extra mile for their kids’ education. And even then, if a student struggles to learn, our inexperienced teachers are no better at teaching them than public school teachers (and often worse). There are some things my school does well and I welcome anyone to see how the classrooms work. But I will stop allowing my schools to be used to further a goal that involves cutting funds to public education and the schools that need it the most. Because the way I operate my schools means they can never help the majority of students in those failing schools. And I will stop saying that teachers in failing schools have “given up” on their students when I don’t want those same students in MY school.”
Can I share your information NYC Teacher? I understand the crooked game so much better now.
I am sorry, I mean NYC public school parent.
Businessmen do not want to pay taxes to educate all children. They only want “their” money to go to schools that educate children that will provide a return on their investment.
Why are businessmen and bankers allowed to decide which children get a good education?
Charter schools are called public schools because lawmakers made a deal with their campaign contributers to call them public schools. They do not play by the same rules as traditional public schools. So let’s stop the pretense.
Charter schools are public schools in name only. Public money is being invested and private business is making a profit. The vast majority of the students in the state of New York are not benefitting from the deal. In fact the vast majority of children in the state of New York are being negatively impacted by the rheeform movement.
Betsy,
You say “Public money is being invested and private business is making a profit. ”
Examples please?
Every charter school in NY is a 501c3 not-for-profit. Only 9grandfathered one are allowed to contract with for-profit operators.
Saying something repeatedly doesn’t make it true.
John, do you disagree with anything I said? Is it possible to be very honest about what Success Academy is and isn’t. I think we both know it is not a solution to the problems of failing schools, which generally have close to 100% of low-income students, many of whom are seriously at-risk due to family issues and poverty. The sad thing is that Success has so much money that it COULD be a solution for far more of those students, but it does seem as if being able to crow about test scores trumps all. And making sure affluent kid have “choices” is just as important (perhaps more important) than educating at-risk students.
public school parent,
I agree with a lot of what you said regarding SA, but I think there are a large number of students that are underserved, not just ones you describe.
Yes, charters don’t get the absolute lowest performing students (e.g. severe disabilities, homeless, most challenging ELL), but they get plenty of students who are on track to not graduate from high school, which is where I think our area of strength is.
There are some charters that particularly try to serve these populations and are very successful with them. It would be nice if Eva would open one or two of those schools as well (e.g. a school for special ed and a language immersion school).
It’s chic to not care about test scores, but it’s also a deflection and rationalization for poor performance. The parents that are choosing SA obviously believe in it and feel it’s right for their children.
NYC public school parent: you have just illustrated with local detail the thesis I’ve had since day 1 about charterization, which is why I’ve always been against it. Regardless of legal double-speak supposedly distinguishing private from public, it has been clear from the get-go that charters are all about competition for consumer choice, hence are set up on a business model.
There is only so much money to be made in the poor, high-risk-student market; to make ends meet, charters must branch into middle- & upper-class markets. And ‘making ends meet’ is not the sort of ROI hedge-fund investors are looking for; sooner or later, charters must begin to take over good, high-performing schools in order to continue profit growth.
This is why I continue to warn my fat-&-happy suburban friends that charterization of the nearby inner-city schools [Newark, in my case] IS their business, & will come knocking at their door very soon unless they get their a’s in gear, get active, & stop ed-reform in its tracks.
bethree5,
There are no “hedge-fund investors” in charter schools, and in New York, where all charters are 501c3, there is no “ROI”, and most charter laws require charters to serve underserved populations.
Also, keep in mind that no charter makes a nickel unless parents choose it for their students.
bethree5, it’s interesting that you say that. Do you remember that in New Jersey quite a few years back, Governor Christie was going to allow charters to open in some suburban NJ neighborhoods. The outcry was amazing! The affluent parents in the suburbs weren’t fooled at all about how much those charter schools were hoping to “disrupt” their good public school. And suddenly Christie had to backtrack, since those had been “his” voters in the past. So far Cuomo hasn’t dared to ask for the same — I’m sure Success Academy would be chomping at the bit to open in Scarsdale or Edgemont. I guess NYC is so populous that there are still plenty of educated families to allow some charters to expand and attract them. And of course, the best way to drive affluent families into charters is to undermine public schools as much as you can, cutting funding, promoting testing and the myth that public school teachers are lazy union bums who don’t care about your child’s education. There are obviously genuine changes that could be made (by the union, too) to improve public schools, but the “reform” certainly appears to be intended not to improve public schools, but to convince parents that they are bad and charters are better.
John – you don’t think that Eva paying herself $600,000 is a form of profit? I mean, technically, under the definition of a “non-profit” business, no, it’s not. But don’t you think it’s rather obscene that the leader of a group of schools with a few thousand students pays herself twice what the Chancellor of New York makes?
Dienne,
I’m not a fan of Eva’s salary, but…
My understanding is that half is paid by a separate not-for-profit and half by the school network. The half from the not-for-profit presumably rewards her fund raising, which certainly has been very successful.
I think the half from the school is probably too high, but some superintendents of districts smaller than her network are close to that, and she is managing a great deal of growth and change that they don’t have to deal with.
John, I think you just said that you agree with me that Eva Moskowitz is being VERY misleading about what her charter schools are doing. Why not just come out and say it? I AGREE that there are other charter schools actually serving the needs of the at-risk students in danger of not graduating — but unfortunately those charter schools are the ones who don’t get very good results (but they still do good work). But Success Academy is NOT one of those charter schools. I don’t believe that very many of the 30 or 31 students who managed to make it to 8th grade in her first SA school were really “at risk” of not graduating. And those 30 students were given the benefit of scads of money that her donors argue is not necessary for public education — they point to how well those 30 students did as “proof” that public schools could get the same results. Why not offer that as proof that MORE money helps schools when they serve primarily low-income students?
The charter school chains like Success Academy are basically just like loss leaders in big supermarket chains that come in and pretend they are going to “compete” with the small mom and pop store. They can lose money by advertising “low prices” for the same goods and draw more and more customers away from the mom and pop store. Eventually, the mom and pop store closes. Guess what happens then? Yep, the supermarket chain raises their prices because in fact, they weren’t providing better services for less money, they were simply happy to lose money until they could shut down the local mom and pop store. That is exactly what these charter chains are trying to do with public schools. Do you know why I feel certain of it? Because Eva Moskowitz refuses to be HONEST about her ability to educate at-risk students. Why is she so desperate to prevent anyone from auditing her books? What would happen if the public really know the COST of providing her education, and the numbers of at-risk students who end up somewhere else? And that does NOT include the parents who win the lottery who are dissuaded during the early meetings from enrolling their children.
Let’s face it, Success Academy is interested in opening schools in affluent neighborhoods because it WANTS the children of college-educated middle class and UMC parents who live there. It’s “experiment” in educating low-income students has not exactly been a rousing success — graduating 30 of 70+ kids after all that money spent on them isn’t much better than public schools achieve with far fewer resources. If Eva Moskowitz and her supporters are so concerned for the thousands of kids trapped in failing public schools, why isn’t she opening schools where those students get priority? Why not in the Bronx, where most of those schools are, instead of District 2 Manhattan, where NONE of them are? Frankly, I find it more appalling that she pretends she cares about those low-income students because she does far more harm than good by insisting those schools don’t need more money, or smaller class sizes, just Success Academy to take them over.
John, people like you enable Eva Moskowitz because you, too, refuse to be honest about what she does. You, and the charter schools that DO try to educate all students, seem to be terrified to point out the truths about how those schools are run. Are you that fearful of crossing your big donors who are very interested in promoting the myth that Success Academy is the way to address failing schools and teaching kids in poverty? Be brave. Speak out. Quit enabling something that I suspect you know is a lie.
NYC public school parent,
I agreed with much of what you were saying. Charters should be serving low income, underserved students, and it appears that SA is expanding in some areas that aren’t that. If I lived in NYC, I’d probably be unhappy about that, but frankly, I’m focused on my own school and city.
Like most charters, we have no “big donors” (or more than a handful of small donors) and I speak for myself. I think the NY Times article was sensationalistic, and I put way more weight on things like the authorizer’s school visit reports. I also think the anti-test mania that is going around these days is way overblown and more about APPR than about children.
I think SA does a lot of things that *are* the way to address failing schools and teach kids in poverty, so I don’t support that part of your supposition.
So I agree with you on one point, but disagree with you much. There’s no conspiracy here; just my point of view.
Anyone who thinks this is all black and white/good and evil is coming at this with a lot of preconceptions, and likely a lot of misinformation.
John, thanks for your reply. I didn’t realize you weren’t that well-versed in what Eva Moskowitz and Success Academy were all about. In fact, the funniest thing you wrote above is your belief that you had more faith in “the authorizer’s school visits”. It was unintentionally hilarious, especially if you had watched the video of the SUNY Charter Institute’s October meeting, in which they basically brushed off the evidence of empty seats as Success Academy “not having enough time to advertise their latest school”. This is a school with what is probably a million dollar marketing budget and so many thousands of students on their waiting lists, but SUNY accepted without question Success Academy’s excuse that enough parents didn’t know about their newest schools! And simply agreed that Success Academy NEEDED another school where their wait lists were small to nonexistent and they had empty seats instead of a school where all those thousands of students we keep hearing about would actually have a shot at attending! Yes, John, you have a charter school that keeps referencing those “thousands” on the wait list and in falling schools, but they themselves are not opening the schools where those students have any ability to attend! And that is thanks to SUNY’s “oversight”.
But you probably ALSO don’t know that in the meeting where the SUNY Charter Institute bowed to Eva Moskowitz desire to CHANGE the lottery preferences so that kids zoned for failing schools did NOT get preference anymore, one of the SUNY trustees resigned in protest. The SUNY Charter Institute thanked him for his service and happily continued to accommodate the one charter chain that kept asking for more charter schools to be located in districts that had some of the LOWEST % of at-risk students instead of the highest. So all those students on their wait list that SA keeps referencing can’t attend them! Not because the school was too far — oh no, I’m sure parents with failing schools would have happily traveled for a shot at a Success Academy school. But since Eva Moskowitz specifically DROPPED lottery preference for them in the schools with empty seats, it didn’t matter and they were never going to get a spot in those schools if they weren’t lucky enough to live in that very affluent district. Instead, they’d have to remain on the long wait lists for the school in their district – like the one described by the NY Times, where 19% of the students may leave each year, but are never replaced!
But John, I am very glad to know that you “THINK SA does a lot of things that *are* the way to address failing schools and teach kids in poverty”. But unfortunately, the things they do ends up leaving as many of 50% of the students in poverty who win their lottery having to leave their schools in high poverty neighborhoods. That is a fact and it truly mystifies me why you are so bent on defending a charter school when you actually have admitted you don’t know very much about what they do. Are some students who live in poverty (but who have very dedicated parents) helped by attending a Success Academy school? Of course! But MOST of them are not because Success Academy uses methods like the one described in the NY Times article that succeed in weeding out at-risk students if they can’t learn fast enough. And remember, that high attrition is for the kids who have dedicated parents who not only signed them up for the lottery, but also signed a contract and attended information sessions. And yet SA is STILL are getting rid of many of those students! If Success can’t even teach most of the low-income students with motivated parents, what answer do they have for failing schools filled with students who DON’T have those kinds of parents? No wonder Eva Moskowitz could not WAIT to drop lottery priority for kids zoned for failing schools! Even she knows that her schools can’t teach any but a select number of at-risk kids, even WITH motivated parents. It’s a shame that you seems far more naive that Ms. Moskowitz about that. It sounds as if you know very little about her schools, so why in the world are you defending them?
This is not about good/evil. This is about HONESTY and DISHONESTY. Now I think it is possible that if Eva Moskowitz was honest about all this, all of her funding from wealthy folks interested in privatizing public education would dry up. So maybe you, too, think the ends justifies the means, and if some public schools and the at-risk students in them don’t have enough money to buy books or supplies, it is all fine because Eva Moskowitz can teach a few of those low-income kids with motivated parents. But her dishonesty has led to a lack of support for the schools who do teach those kids, because people like you believe the myth that those failing schools need nothing but the SA “program” and not smaller class sizes or more funding. What shocks me is that any person who cares about at-risk kids could believe that it is okay for Eva Moskowitz to pretend to be something she is not despite the harm she is doing to those failing public schools.
John
Since you seem like a fairly intelligent individual, I am sure that you understand that being a ‘Non profit’ does not mean that the system is free from profit taking.
If you are genuinely uninformed, you might be interested in reading up on the subject…
http://www.propublica.org/article/when-charter-schools-are-nonprofit-in-name-only
Betsy,
I understand this very well. There are 9 grandfathered schools in New York that are allowed to contract with for-profit companies The rest of us don’t do that and are prohibited from it. IMO, that’s how it should be.
I don’t think the carefully orchestrated and politically motivated campaign to label all public schools “failing” and inferior to charter and private schools is “fair” either, and I’ve been subjected to it in this state for 15 years.
She loved the media attention when it was unfailingly gushing and worshipful. Pretty naive to think no one was ever going to dig deeper.
bethree5,
Thanks for telling your fat happy suburban friends that the One Newark nightmare might arrive on their doorsteps. People voice little support or objection when poor people are disenfranchised. Middle and upper class parents would never allow themselves to be subjected to the racism and abuse rampant in Newark.
In some ways the focus on charter leaders is misdirection. Eva is an advocate for charter schools. She isn’t elected and she doesn’t have any duty to advocate for public schools or “improve” public schools. She has no duty to the broader public at all.
If we’re going to hold anyone accountable for abandoning or denigrating public schools, it should be elected or appointed leaders who present themselves as focusing on “improving public schools” when actually they focus solely on replacing public schools. That’s dishonest and in a very fundamental sense it means they have decided to simply not do their jobs.
This is such an excellent point, Chiara. You may have hit upon a particular weakness of NYS. There seems to be a predilection for ‘kingmaking’– zeroing in on one individual, giving him all the responsibility/credit for events and results which are actually the product of very complex factors– then bringing the king down (often via scandal) & le roi est mort, vive le roi.
During my decades as a NYC resident, we celebrated Koch as the guy who turned us around from bankrupt to thriving, meanwhile turning the red-light district into the ‘safe’ theatre district. Meanwhile Giuliani as US Atty seemingly single-handedly defeated the Italian mob; as mayor he ‘stopped’ the crack epidemic. Bloomberg continued the trend & ,made NYC a world conference center, while simultaneously bringing the public-school system to its knees.
NY Govs have generally done a better job of balancing complex interests, working w/ legislature, but the present gov Cuomo tries to be a king like past NYC mayors, operating like Bloomberg via big-$ interests, oblivious to voters. Small wonder we have Princess Moskowitz, floated on public funds while making decisions per big-$ interests.
I do think it’s weird that this unelected, self-appointed Head Of Schools has so much clout in NYC.
We have a completely unregulated charter sector in Ohio, but at least we don’t elevate the people who run charter schools to the position where they act as some sort of quasi-state actor and order the mayor around.
No duty to the public, at all, but all the power of an elected or appointed official? That’s probably not a smart template for good government.
You can keep that “innovation”. No thanks.
But you have King Kasich who dictates how all this unfolds. Perhaps he doesn’t want any competition from charter princes & princesses.
Is this the same Eva Moskowitz who pays herself $600,000 per year from public funds? Is this the same Moskowitz who signed a $31M lease for Wall Street office space–paid for from public funds? Disregard anything she says about helping kids–that is not what she is about.
Especially love your last line, Diane! Yes, we’ve been dealing with horrible press for decades. Poor Eva.
Compare and contrast- Atlanta teachers prosecution versus how we treat bankers:
You won’t be seeing any perp walks, that’s for sure. A nice, quiet negotiation, they buy their way out, and it’s right back to business!
I wonder if even the reporter would agree with the characterization of SA as “a Dickensian nightmare where the children are subject to stress, misery and physical and emotional abuse.” I’m guessing not.
She repeated some anonymous, third hand reports of some behavior that may not have happened at all, or may well have happened by accident.
To continue your last thought, John:
“. . . or may well have happened by intent and design.”
Duane,
Of course, but that’s not the journalistic standard, true?
Don’t know the journalistic “standard” that might apply in this case. Any help would be appreciated.
Dienne: as always, glad to lend a hand to someone who is trying to ensure a “better education for all.”
Hmmm, a generally upbeat NY MAGAZINE piece of 4-25-2010 about Eva Moskowitz and Success Academy. The person in the second paragraph of the excerpt below is [from the article] “Paul Fucaloro, her director of instruction and right-hand man.”
[start excerpt]
The day before the scheduled math test, the city got socked with eight inches of snow. Of 1,499 schools in the city, 1,498 were closed. But at Harlem Success Academy 1, 50-odd third-graders trudged through 35-mile-per-hour gusts for a four-hour session over Subway sandwiches. As Moskowitz told the Times, “I was ready to come in this morning and crank the heating boilers myself if I had to.”
“We have a gap to close, so I want the kids on edge, constantly,” Fucaloro adds. “By the time test day came, they were like little test-taking machines.”
[end excerpt]
Link: http://nymag.com/nymag/features/65614/
I guess a published praise piece in NYMAG either has to be digested whole or rejected in whole because there’s the giveaway to back up what your wrote—“little test-taking machines.”
Then there’s a posting on this blog, 2-15-2014, “Reader Offers a Dose of Common Sense about ‘High Test Scores’.”
And do I need to mention all the hits if one googles “Paul Fucaloro” and ‘Success Academy” and “little test-taking machines”? There’s real—not rheeal—food for thought in much of it.
But what the hey! Unsubstantiated anecdotes and proof by assertion work just fine for the sneer, jeer and smear crowd.
I just wonder if they ever realize that decent and caring people—with a wide variety of viewpoints and approaches—are turned off by contempt and bullying.
Or maybe I’ve just answered my own question.
Keep writing. I’ll keep reading.
😎
I like the way you put it. Thanks
Aside from the widespread revulsion at the prison-like atmosphere and hyper-pressurized education in Success Academies there is a legitimate question on whether such policies actually work. Chalkbeat and the NYTimes accept claims of phenomenal test scores without any scrutiny. But as Diane R.and many of the comments in the NY times to the article have pointed out, not one 8th grader passed the entrance test and was accepted to any of NYC’s elite high-schools although many applied. If true, that fact raises the question of how educated these students really are. Public schools in NYC had a much better record. How well these students who received such a narrow educational program fare when they get to high school and especially college (if they qualify) will shed some light on this issue.
As important, from the Academies own statements, they don’t backfill students who leave. Their rationale is that it would be too tough to bring new students up to speed. A questionable proposition. At any rate, their first graduating class started with over 70 students at first grade and less than half that number were still in eighth grade. The ones that left were presumably mainly the lower achieving or alienated students. So only a rarified group is actually being tested. If public schools, who must backfill, could limit testing to their top students, many would be able to claim similar “phenomenal” test performance without children having to suffer from the harsh Dickensonian approach.
Very good point, Mr Honig. Let us keep our eyes on results. SA middle-school grads have not made it into the selective NYC h.s.magnets. Not one.
This is reminding me of an oft-repeated complaint among college profs of late (including community college teachers among my acquaintance): college freshmen in the last decade or so are notably lacking in ability to sustain an intellectual argument of any kind. Their question seems always to be, ‘what is the right answer’?
This is what we are reaping from a generation of test-taking for purposes of accountability.
Just ’cause Eva says so, doesn’t make it true. In fact, question every word that passes her lips, and think: Who profits?
You felt strongly enough about something to post it on a blog, but have nothing to back it up?
Have people ever notice how young and confident Michelle Rhee was after her graduation? Similarly, Eva is the old image of Michelle. Who did Michelle marry and now end up with Mr. Harvard graduate? Let me take a guess at our bachelor Governor Cuomo who supports Eva who is with
“Is this the same Eva Moskowitz who pays herself $600,000 per year from public funds? Is this the same Moskowitz who signed a $31M lease for Wall Street office space–paid for from public funds?”
My question is about WHOSE “intent and design” would be for Eva in now and later in term of her marriage. I hope that the NYMAG reporter will have all facts and fictions for Eva as compared to Michelle Rhee’s story. Just a curiosity! Back2basic
Sounds like Eva is making excuses.
Interesting, too, how we see more pro-SA posts here since this blog started this SA thread. The glo-ing reviews seem almost cultish. Wonder if an email went out to parents?
MathVale: the threads on this blog seem to be crawling with Ionesco fans like yourself today—
“It is not the answer that enlightens, but the question.”
But then, when an old dead Greek guy won’t do, a not so old and dead and Romanian guy that wrote in French will do just fine.
I like your caution in terminology: “almost cultish.”
Those comments are also “almost logical” and “almost reality-based” and “almost sincere in engaging in genuine dialogue.”
Or are we being misleadingly timid by using the modifier “almost”?
I am a fan of Ionesco too.
😎
It is perfectly valid to challenge SA. How they respond to being challenged is telling. It sure looks like a cult developing complete with circling the wagons, us against them.
Watch this video and see Eva duck the question about whether her charter chain’s lotteries self-select parents who are more involved, who are more upscale, and who deliver easier-to-educate children to Success Academy schools: (why, that’s “unknowable”… doncha know?)
In the process of answering, Eva inadvertantly lets slip the selective outreach she engages in to attract a more desirable cream of students… note the graphics superimposed as she talks.
NOTE: she was being interviewed by a friendly source—the union-hating libertarian REASON TV.
My favorite part of the video is when the Eva’s charter shill Jeremiah Kittredge condemns public schools with the claim that that “over 50% of public schools serve a less-than-average number of special ed. kids.”
Yeah… that’s the definition of “average”, as the video points out.
Hmmm… what other brilliant defenses will Kittredge, Eva, and their ilk be making and publicizing next?
(Here goes my audition for THE ONION!)
—————————-
Re: teachers’ attrition & the longevity of TFA teachers (the vast majority of whom leave after two years, three at the most… RINSE & REPEAT ad infinitum) –
KITTREDGE: “Oh… Attrition Schmmattrition. The numbers don’t lie, and they back us up here. An impressive result from a key study indicates that up-to-49% of our TFA Corps Members staffing our charter schools have longer-than-average teaching careers, and remain in the classroom longer than their fellow TFA colleagues. In turn, our charter scholars reap the benefits of this selfless dedication.”
or
“And what about the sky-high attrition among unionized public school teachers and THEIR career length? Nobody ever talks about THAT. Is their record so much more impressive? A damning statistical analysis reveals that over 50% of teachers in unionized schools leave teaching and abandon their students, on average, earlier than their fellow unionized teachers. Just think of the resulting negative impact that is then visited upon their students. Shame on them! The system is broken!”
– – – – – – –
re: student attrition –
EVA MOSKOWITZ: “We’re extremely proud of our record on this issue, and never moreso than on Graduation Day. To see the glowing satisfaction on the faces of our SUCCCESS ACADEMY scholars and parents makes all that we do so worthwhile. Indeed, we’re proving those cynics wrong, as the data incontrovertibly shows that a whopping 100% of our Success Academy scholars who are not kicked… err… ‘counseled out’ prior to Graduation Day actually walk across that stage to get their diplomas. I mean, come on! 100 PERCENT??!!! You can’t do any better than THAT!”
– – – – – – –
re: co-location –
EVA MOSKOWITZ: “This so-called ‘co-location crisis’ in NYC schools is way overblown by our detractors. Indeed, 100% of the public schools that do not yet have a charter school co-located on their campus—and there are hundreds of them, mind you—report ZERO percent of the problems typically associated with charter school co-locations. Why aren’t our critics reporting this fact?”
– – – – – – –
re: charter school leaders’ refusal to pay rent for the public school buildings—originally built and now maintained by taxpayers—that the charters do/will occupy –
KITTREDGE: “Look, this is just Business 101. It’s a basic market principle: the more you SPEND, the less you HAVE… so how can you then charge us rent, and steal money from the education of poor children? Didn’t you see our TV commercials with all those adorable Charter School kids? How can you do this to them?”
– – – – – – –
re: enormous Charter industry executive & administrator salaries… in the mid-six-figures (i.e. Kittredge, Eva, Dave & Mike at KIPP, Deborah Kenney, etc.) –
KITTREDGE: “Look, we don’t overpay our top people. Across the city, we see it again and again… and this needs to be reported more… over 50% of charter school executives and administrators take home a less-than-average salary in comparison to their fellow charter school administrators and executives. The enormous amount of money saved then goes to the classroom, and to meet the needs or our scholars. Why can’t our critics see this, then get off this topic, and find something new to whine about?”
– – – – – – – –
re: intensive test-prep for standardized tests, sometimes two hours or more a day (N.Y. Magazine reported this, along with a comment from a Success Academy administrator proudly describing the students as “little test-taking machines”) –
EVA MOSKOWITZ: “”Look, what’s wrong with a little practice before a standardized test? We make it fun, and it’s not even that much to begin with. Our tracking of our scholars shows that an impressive 50% or more of our students spend a less-than-average time doing drill-and-kill test prep compared to their fellow Success Academy scholars. That frees up time for … what, exactly… oh… I dunno… I forget… “
No matter how you slice it, there is no way to describe SA as public school. She is a corporate PR talking head.
It’s interesting that the “failing schools campaign” has backfired. It has drawn attention to SA in a negative way. Now the focus is….Wait you get to remove students?, How many of your students and teachers actually stay for multiple years?, wait your upset that former teachers and students are saying the truth. More people don’t speak up because they fear retaliation. On the other hand, I’m surprised no one has actually mentioned the fact that most of the people at the rallies are employees that do not want to be there, but are actually forced to make signs and rally! It is not a choice and most parents are forced to attend these events, after the teacher spends 12hrs a day with their child. Also lets not forget that the targeted communities are composed of minority students with uneducated parents..it can be easy to convince them to chant for SA and make money off of them.
Sorry for the typos.. I’m aware.. =)
Thank you John and Raj for not having closed minds.
Betsey Marshall you are clearly a conspiracy theorist. I am a real parent and have an actual child who attends Harlem East middle school. I’m sorry that my experience does not reflect your opinion. If you’d like to have an off-line conversation regarding my actual child and my real experience I can be reached at GAndesonFlete@gmail.com. I will caution you to be respectful if you choose to contact me.
GAndersonFlete@gmail.com
Glo, I believe you. And I think you honestly care about at-risk students, who tend to come from low-income families. Did you ever ask Eva Moskowitz why she dropped priority for those students? Did you ever ask Eva Moskowitz why she only has one school in District 7 in the Bronx, which likely has one of the longest wait lists of in-district families, and yet she has 2 schools — and asked for a 3rd! — in very wealthy District 2, where some of the seats were unfilled? Would you wonder why Eva Moskowitz would insist she needs another school in District 2 instead of District 7, where there are far more low-income students on SA wait lists who do NOT have other options? I don’t understand why parents like you would not put pressure on Eva Moskowitz to open more schools in the neighborhoods that really need them? Instead, you allow yourselves to be used as props so that she can open new schools in District 2! Where the mostly affluent students are treated without the harsh methods used in the Harlem Success Academy profiled in the NY Times?
NYC public school parent — I say this as someone with his own propensity toward unhealthy single-topic obsessions, but you may have an unhealthy obsession with Eva Moskowitz and Success Academy.
FLERP!, I have to assume you have never met someone who valued honesty. I post here because I believe — perhaps to you it is naive — that most people here who aren’t PR folks are interested in facts. The only reason I post about Eva Moskowitz is because I am always astonished when she so often says things that are blatantly misleading with no one calling her on it. So I post the facts — which I get from the NYSED website, or watching the SUNY Charter Institute in action, or read on Success Academy’s own application for charter schools. I get attacked all the time with the kind of things that you say “oh you are obsessed”, but no one actually tries to show me where my facts are wrong. I think that’s odd — don’t you? Did I post something that was incorrect? If so, I welcome people correcting one of my facts and I am happy to acknowledge if I made an error. But calling names? That’s the last resort of people who don’t like your facts because they tell the truth about something you want to hide.
I truly don’t understand how Eva Moskowitz was able to 1. drop lottery priority for kids zoned for failing schools and 2. locate more schools in very wealthy school districts than she has in high needs District 7 in the Bronx and 3. drop lottery priority for ELL students without anyone blinking an eye. But since she did, I also don’t understand how she can profess concern for the students trapped in failing public schools whom she had every opportunity to help but chose not to. Why? The hypocrisy is deafening, but the way they handle legitimate criticism is to call people “obsessed” instead of explaining their actions. How does locating another school in wealthy district 2 help all the students in District 7 in the Bronx where Success Academy has a single school with far more district students on the wait list? Why are you so offended if I ask that question? Is it because upper middle class students with college educated parents are easier to teach and don’t need to be suspended and don’t mysteriously disappear from Success schools in large numbers without being replaced? I don’t blame Eva Moskowitz for wanting lots of affluent students — I blame her for not being HONEST about her difficulties in educating the at-risk ones. It’s clear that her rate of success with them isn’t very high, and she ONLY has at-risk students with very motivated parents. If anything, she should be out there fighting for more resources for those kids in failing public schools instead of bashing their teachers as if they should be able to achieve the miracles that Success Academy most certainly has NOT achieved with even more resources. How can she, in good conscience, argue that class size doesn’t matter when you are teaching at-risk students? It’s one thing to run a charter school that weeds out up to half the low-performing students and advertises to affluent ones. It is another thing to pretend that you are running a charter chain that is achieving miraculous results with at-risk students with even fewer resources than those wasteful public schools. Can you understand the difference? Doing the second harms all those students she doesn’t want to teach, by pretending that they need nothing but new Success Academy teachers.
Do you have kids, FLERP!? Something I teach mine is that name-calling is the last refuge of people who don’t have facts on their side. So if it makes you feel better to post insults, go right ahead. But you might want to think about what your posts say about YOU and the people you defend, and not the person you are insulting.
I think we already had this discussion about who I am over at Chalkbeat, where I believe you post as “parent010203.” Here’s the comment thread:
http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2015/03/16/merryl-tisch-opting-out-of-the-state-exams-is-a-terrible-mistake/#.VSu8ilL3bCQ
Now I remember you, FLERP. You kept claiming you didn’t have strong feelings yourself, but somehow you always found time to post over and over criticizing and trying your best to undermine any parent who did not like Albany’s new emphasis on standardized tests. I found it very odd. It was obvious you did have a point of view but needed to pretend you didn’t. Why?
I see that here, too. I always take the time to write a thoughtful and considered response to you, mistakenly taking you at your word. I suppose that makes me gullible and naive to assume the best about people here. Feel free to attack me more if it makes you feel better and I will probably still be foolish enough to write thoughtful replies back. I just can’t bring myself to stoop to your level. Maybe you have some agenda and you take strong offense to any criticisms of Success Academy and Eva Moskowitz. That’s fine, but next time, just own it! I am still happy to engage with you here, as long as you don’t call nasty names.
@ NYC public school parent
I’d like to start by saying that I am pleased that you are satisfied and clearly happy as a NYC public school parent and that is the way it should be. Unfortunately, that is not the case for everyone.
Being a long time success parent, and one who is obviously outspoken, not the mindless puppet you all seem to think that success parents are, I am well aware of the statistics that you’ve sited. I have personally had Eva’s ear for many years and have addressed many of those concerns and am not sure why you would assume otherwise. However, the article that this discussion came out of was centered around testing, test-prep and that has been the focus of all of my responses. Unfortunately, many of you have Success Academy hatred deeply buried in your psyches, and my point of view will obviously not change that.
Answer this though… how many parents would WANT to send their children to the Bronx District 7 schools, that they are unfortunately tethered to by their zip codes, if they didn’t have to? Yes, there needs to be reform! But how many years has District 7 been considered an under-performing district? How many generations of kids has this district failed? Neither Eva Moskowitz nor Success Charter network is to blame for years of neglect in this district. My question is this: While we wait for Eva (or anyone for that matter) to open high quality schools in this district, what do we do with the kids who are currently reside in this district? Whose responsibility are they? What does their future look like? As opposed to taking shots at the only other free option in town that seems to be working, let’s put our egos to the side and put our heads together. We need a solution that will not take too many more years and scores of failed children to realize. I ask again, what is the solution? In the mean time, I chose and will continue to choose Success for MY child because even ONE wasted year in a failing school is too high of a price to pay.
Glo,
I think most people would have a better opinion of Eva if she didn’t boast so much and didn’t compare her schools to district schools that enroll twice as many English language learners and far more students with disabilities. It seems that she wants to annoy people by bragging. Do you like braggarts?
Glo,
“. . . in a failing school. . . ”
And what is that “failing school”? Name names! How do you know it is “failing”?
TIA,
Duane
Duane,
My school is “failing.” The sky is falling. The all mighty scores have gone down since it became a renew school. There are fights every day. The girls have more fights than the boys. The One Newark plan has frozen the student populations of the “good” schools. The poor children are being shuffled from one location to another to stay ahead of the latest school closings. It is incredibly challenging to get up every day and go there never mind teach anything. The commenters on this blog who bandy around the terms high poverty “failing” schools are so far removed from the reality of these circumstances that I know not where to begin.
Glo, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I hope you are not characterizing me as someone who has “Success Academy hatred buried in your psyches” just because I am asking questions. I don’t “hate” anyone and I always acknowledge that Success Academy has success with SOME at-risk students, but I think we both agree that it hasn’t been nearly the type of miracle (“98% passing rates!”) that Eva Moskowitz brags about, and she obviously has many millions of dollars in donations to give those at-risk students with motivated parents the best education money can buy. But does it bother you at all that she seems to be offering that very expensive education to more affluent parents than at-risk ones? Does it bother you that so many at-risk students disappear from Success Academy, despite their parents being lucky enough to win the lottery AND very motivated to get them a good education, which isn’t true of all at-risk students? Does it bother you that Success Academy seems to be able to easily find 2nd graders to join Success Academy Upper West but somehow not at the Harlem Success Academies, even though the latter seems to lose far more students and have more kids on the waiting lists?
I never said that Eva Moskowitz or Success Academy is to blame for District 7 being an underperforming district. POVERTY is to blame! There are now many neighborhood public schools that are performing much better than a decade or two ago, and that is a direct result of more middle class parents using them. But without the middle class parents, you are left with schools that have over 90% at-risk students and no one — especially not Eva Moskowitz — has come up with a good way to educate most at-risk students. But to hear her saying that the issue is NOT poverty and that those schools have “given up” on those students is blatant hypocrisy coming from someone who herself seems to have “given up” on most of those students but is pretending otherwise. It is atrocious that Success Academy loses so many students from its low-income schools and yet gains them in their high-income ones. It is atrocious that at high poverty Success Academy schools, low-income students are taught in the way described in the NY Times article, but at high income schools the parents rave about how their “gifted” students are treated so kindly. I believe them! If your child is well-behaved and learns easily, and especially if he is “gifted”, I have no doubt that he will have a very happy experience at Success Academy Upper West or Union Square. But apparently, if you are one of the lucky at-risk students in the high-poverty Success Academy schools and are struggling to learn, it is because you just aren’t trying hard enough. And so it’s fine to make that student’s life “miserable” until he improves or leaves. Do you really think it is okay that so many at-risk students aren’t lasting? Do you really think it is okay that there is one way that at-risk students are taught and another more “gentle” way that affluent students are taught? And do you have any problem whatsoever with seeing 15% of Kindergarten or 2nd graders given out of school suspensions as a method of “teaching”, but ONLY at certain high-poverty Success Academy schools and not at ones located in affluent neighborhoods?
I don’t blame you for choosing Success Academy because I suspect you have a child who is doing well there. But does having a child there mean you give up your right to demand honesty from the people who educate her? Think how many at-risk children would be helped if Success Academy didn’t pretend that their poverty didn’t matter, which translates into “we don’t have to do anything to help those kids in poverty except open more Success Academy schools that won’t give them priority in their lottery and will counsel them out if they can’t perform!”