A data analyst who worked for the past several years in the New York City Department of Education wrote the following about Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter chain. Most of the data he cites comes from public records maintained by the city or state education departments. His footnotes are at the bottom of the post.
Building a Charter Chain, and a Mayoral Campaign, on Lies
Over the past few days a deluge of, what for lack of a better word can only be described as Success Academy propaganda material, has appeared in the New York City media. The New York Daily News published an opinion piece written by what they termed “a researcher” and a “graduate student” that used the veneer of data to argue that Success Academy is a true success and miracle story.[1] Careful analysis reveals that many of the claims are outrights lies and the rest are half-truths.
Let’s start digging in.
Claim #1: “Success Academy schools serve a similar share of special needs students relative to their zoned counterparts.” This is a lie. According to the latest public data on the New York City Department of Education’s Progress Report website [2] the 4 Success Academy schools in Harlem had a total of 2540 students enrolled. Of these students only 17 were special education students with the highest level of need. That’s 0.6% of their students. By contrast the average percent of special education students with the highest level of need at community elementary/middle schools throughout New York City was 9.4% and 14% in Harlem. The average community school in NYC serves 1,500% MORE of the highest need special education students than Success Academy.[3] Such a vast disparity, in what to a significant extent are disabilities based on neurological, medical and physical differences, can’t be explained by anything other than Success Academy not serving the neediest students in the community.[4] You might think it would be hard for the researchers who penned the propaganda in the Daily News to top this lie. They will manage to surprise you.
Claim #2: “the school is more successful in teaching students English…27% of Success Academy students passed the ELL writing exam, compared to 19% at nearby schools.” This is a lie. The school is not successful at teaching English Language Learners. The “researchers” somehow forgot to mention that Success Academy only serves ELLs who are already amazingly good at English. According to the New York State data [5] over 90% of the ELL students at Success Academy are proficient or advanced in kindergarten (that is before Success Academy would have had much of an effect). Seems that Success Academy only serves English Language Learners who already know English. There ARE data suggesting that Success Academy IS very successful at kicking ELLs out (perhaps the few intermediate level ELL students who manage to slip through the lottery).[6]
Claim #3: “Success Academy students scored on average 39 points… ahead of others from equivalent backgrounds.” This is a lie. It is only by misrepresenting the “equivalent background” that they can make this claim. As we have seen in the first two lies that were exposed above, these “researchers” have not even come close to controlling for “equivalent backgrounds.” They have not controlled for level of special education need. They have not controlled for English Language Learner performance levels. They have not controlled for parent characteristics. They have not controlled for home environment. They have not controlled for peer effects of creaming some of the most advantaged students in each neighborhood.[7]
Claim #4: “the overall rate of attrition at Success Academy is far from alarming.” This is a lie. The “researchers” make this claim by comparing the yearly rate of attrition at Success Academy to that of other, nearby community schools. But that is an absurd comparison to make. After all, the data show that Success Academy is serving some of the most economically, linguistically, and academically privileged students in Harlem.[8] On top of that parents must actively choose to enter a lottery to get into Success Academy and must put up with Ms. Moskowitz’s hazing.[9] The fact that even after such a thorough screening process every single year, year after year, another 10% of the student body leaves IS rather disturbing.
Claim #5: They dismiss as a “side argument” the notion that “the choice not to backfill drives up scores.” It is a moral imperative to point out that only charter schools are given this “choice.” Public schools serve all students, from all circumstances, at all times (even when charter schools kick those very students out right after “census day,” the day districts use to calculate enrollment for budget purposes). It is disturbing that this difference seems to carry such little weight with so-called education reformers. It can only make one wonder how invested they really are in the success of each and every student.
It is also disturbing that these researchers seem unable to use basic logic and arithmetic. An Independent Budget Office report showed that charters are more likely to lose the students who score poorly on the New York State exams and who are more often absent.[10] Losing 30% of the students who will test poorly before they enter the first testing grade (i.e. 10% attrition each year through 3rd grade) can have a huge effect on test outcomes. Since it is reasonable to assume that Success Academy replaces those students with ones more likely to do well on the exams, the whole Success Academy effect can be explained by attrition.[11]
Let’s use the data from Harlem Success Academy 1 as an illustration. This year’s 8th grade cohort, the one that started kindergarten in the 2006-07 school year, dropped from 83 students in kindergarten to 63 students in 3rd grade. This means that at least 25% of the cohort disappeared even before the first exam.[12] As the disappearing students are the ones least likely to do well on the exams that means that in 3rd grade these students can be expected to score proficient on the New York State exams at a rate that would be about 25% higher than would be expected based solely on other factors (such as the creaming and self-selection noted above). This effect fully accounts for Success Academy’s, now obviously banal, outcomes.
Claim #6: “growth data from 2013 suggests that in the upper grades, on average, students maintain their high early achievement rather than moving further ahead.” Now this one is interesting since the researchers are more or less admitting that a Success Academy education amounts to very little. If students are not growing more the more time they are spending in these schools, what exactly is Success Academy accomplishing? This little fact shows that the rest of their essay amounts to little more than apologetics and lies. It is implausible to assume that Success Academy accomplishes magic in the early grades and then barely manages to hold ground in upper grades. In fact, this is another piece of evidence suggesting that Success Academy amounts to little more than an accounting trick.
However even this is a half-truth since the most recent (2012-13) New York City Department of Education Progress Report data show that Success Academy lagged well behind its “peer” schools in English exam growth.[13] Success Academy scored in the 39th percentile on English exam growth for their overall student population and in the 21st percentile on English exam growth for the students who began with scores in the lowest 1/3 of students citywide.
Claim #7: “The implication is that, through “drill and kill” instructional techniques, Success Academy is teaching students only low-level skills…The reality is much different.” Here the “researchers” mislead in various ways. They state that “Success Academy students get more science instruction than their peers.” It is unclear how they know this since no evidence is cited. They forgot to mention that according to a Success Academy teacher “We do not teach history or foreign languages in elementary school.[14]” The teacher also revealed that “Test prep starts in November.” A former teacher noted that the “Entire school focused on remaining at top of network schools assessment wise.” [15] From another interview, “All of the other grades, besides seventh and eighth grade, have been doing test prep since…the beginning of November. So that means they weren’t having English class, they were just doing stupid passages by random authors of no literary basis, quality, and just doing multiple choice questions for the past two months or so. [16]”
The “researchers” also somehow forgot to mention that exactly zero Success Academy students scored well enough on the Specialized High School Admission Exam to be admitted to one the city’s top high schools.[17] This forgotten piece of data supports the teachers’ claims that a very narrow sort of test prep characterizes Success Academy curriculum, as little of it appears to generalize to other exams.
Conclusion: Given all the other tricks in the Success Academy playbook including suspension rates 2-3 times the district averages [18], teacher attrition rates approaching 75% a year [19], the ability to spend thousands of more dollars per student thanks to deep pocketed ideological foes of public schools [20], the ability to grade its own exams (public schools are legally prohibited from doing so), and lots more instructional time, Success Academy must be considered an utter failure.
The media, as seen in the “puff piece” in the New York Times Magazine [21], is clearly getting behind Eva Moskowitz’s planned mayoral campaign. However, the accumulating lies cannot withstand scrutiny. Eva has fought audits of her schools and has refused to be transparent with Success Academy data. These are not the characteristics that we want in an elected official. Nor in a leader of schools.
[1] http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/results-real-article-1.1929656
[2] http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/tools/report/default.htm
[3] By the way, Success Academy did not do any miracles with these students. Fewer than 20% tested proficient on the NYS English Exam.
[4] Not that that has stopped shills for the charter school industry from trying http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ttr-charter-speced-crpe-mead.pdf
[5] http://data.nysed.gov/
[6] http://commonal.tumblr.com/post/58209601458/harlem-success-academy-charter-and-attrition
[7] They also convert a 39 point difference in test scores into being “3 years” more advanced than other students. To put this ridiculous claim in context, let’s note that 39 points is about 12% of the average total score for general education students in New York City on the New York State exams. They are essentially claiming that a student who scores a 92% on an exam is 3 years more advanced than a student who scores an 80%.
[8] http://andreagabor.com/2014/05/09/a-demographic-divide-in-east-harlem-the-neediest-kids-go-to-public-schools-not-charters/
[9] Here is one parent’s description on insideschools.org: “I attended the orientation & was “turned off” by Ms. E. Moskowitz condescending & offensive approach. She was bordering on insulting. When informing the parents of their obligations to attend the after-school games/activities, she said,“All parents are expected to attend and stay for the entire time. Don’t think you can come for a little while & leave to go get your hair done”. “Another comment made in poor taste was when a parent ask if there was financial asst. 4 uniforms. Ms. M’s response was, “No.you have six weeks to save up”.”
[10] http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/2014attritioncharterpublic.pdf “Among students in charter schools, those who remained…had higher average scale scores…compared with those who had left for another New York City public school.” “Absenteeism is an even greater predictor of turnover for students in charter schools, compared with its predictive power for students in nearby traditional public schools.”
[11] Since Success Academy refuses to transparently share its data we are unable to determine exactly how much of a role attrition plays in the early grades. The public data only show overall cohort sizes, so when Success Academy loses 10% of its students a year, if it backfills those seats in grades K-3, the cohort size appears to remain stable through those years. As the “researchers” admit to at least the 10% annual attrition rate we will accept their numbers. But it is also possible that attrition is even higher in the early grades, since “survivor bias” makes it reasonable to assume that the longer a student has been at a Success Academy school the more likely they are to remain.
[12] See the previous endnote for an explanation of why this is likely an underestimate.
[13] http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1550033E-3F15-4746-BD1A-DF3364721785/0/2012_2013_EMS_PR_Results_2014_04_24.xlsx this data does not account for the selective attrition effects noted above and is therefore a very optimistic figure for the real outcomes within Success Academy schools
[14] https://dianeravitch.net/2013/10/04/mole-in-success-academy-speaks/
[15] http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Success-Academy-Charter-Schools-Reviews-E381408_P5.htm
[16] http://honestpracticum.com/exclusive-interview-a-tfa-teacher-working-at-success-academy-part-1/
[17] http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/gonzalez-success-charter-students-fail-top-city-schools-article-1.1833960
[18] http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/success-academy-fire-parents-fight-disciplinary-policy-article-1.1438753
[19] http://www.wnyc.org/story/302768-high-teacher-turnover-at-a-success-network-school/ and http://www.citylimits.org/news/articles/5156/why-charter-schools-have-high-teacher-turnover#.VA60YP_wvcw
[20] http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ttr-charter-rent_0.pdf
[21] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/charter-schools_1_b_5781474.html
I would like to cite this in my current writing about education politics in NY but no author is indicated. Is that inadvertent or does the author prefer to remain anonymous?
The author requires anonymity for fear of reprisals. All documentation is cited.
Skimming the comments to my article I enjoyed the discussion. I appreciate the comments from teachers, some of whom are co-located with Success Academy charters, that filled-in details on the tactics Success Academy uses to shall we say “encourage” the more challenging students and the ones likely to test poorly to leave.
I saw the comments asking for replication of my analysis. That is why citations were provided substantiating every single one of the factual statements in my article. It would be great if others were to repeat and confirm my analysis or point out anything I missed. The links are all accurate as is. They don’t need to be updated. The data sets used are exactly as cited in the citations.
Here are some specifics for those who want to repeat the analysis themselves: For ELL data go to the exact webpage I linked to at http://data.nysed.gov/ and type in the individual Success Academy schools and then look up the data for the 2012-13 school year, the most recent year with public ELL data.
For special ed data go to the exact spreadsheet I linked to at http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1550033E-3F15-4746-BD1A-DF3364721785/0/2012_2013_EMS_PR_Results_2014_04_24.xlsx. The spreadsheet opens up to a summary tab so make sure to open the tab labeled “All Information.” That tab has both the peer growth scores in ELA and Math for schools as well as the breakdown of the special education populations by level of need, i.e. self-contained, integrated co-teaching, and special education teacher support services. If you want more detailed data go to the other link I provided http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/tools/report/default.htm, then click on “Find a School’s Progress Report” and search for each Success Academy data by school name or school DBN.
The critical comments by Tim and FLERP are way off both analytically and logically. They want to focus the discussion on charter schools not serving all special education students. Whether the average community public schools serves 10 times more or 15 times more of the highest need special education students than Success Academy is almost beside the point since the problems with Success Academy go far beyond that. For example, as I show in the article, their growth data is very poor, their attrition rate is stupendously high in context of the creaming prior to enrollment, they have no success on exams, ie the SHSAT, other than the ones that they obviously spend so much time intensively test-prepping for and researchers claiming that Success Academy has a high value-add contribution to students are manipulating data in dishonest ways. That is the focus of my article. The fact is that all of Success Academy’s outcomes can be easily explained by the creaming of students and their attrition rate.
Tim’s claim that there are handful of other schools in New York City with low numbers of self-contained special education students is irrelevant since these are schools cherry-picked by him and none of these schools claim to be educating the same students as the average community public school. Nor do any of them attack other public schools as doing a bad job- something that Moskowitz does all the time using Success Academy as her political tool. They would all admit that they are not serving the same students as the average community public school- which Moskowitz and Success Academy defenders refuse to admit as we see from the articles in the Daily News and NY Times.
Even so I checked the cohort attrition data for some of the schools Tim listed. There is no public data at the individual student level but the New York State website I linked to in the article does include data that can be used to track how cohort size changes over time. My finding: they have average yearly cohort attrition rates of under 1%. So even that red herring ends up showing that Success Academy engages in very fishy practices that prove it is not in fact a successful educational enterprise.
Tim keeps on using 9.8% as the percent of students in MRE. I never use that number. I said it was 9.4% which is the exact number you will find if you sum the % population that are self-contained special education students in the DOE’s public spreadsheet. Tim is playing fast and loose with data. It is clear from the spreadsheet that this is the actual percent of the student population at each community public school according to the data set, as the numbers in all 3 categories sum to the overall % of IEPs in each school as listed on the spreadsheet. There is minor noise in the data at some schools since certain cells in the breakdown by special education category are not filled in if the N is too low and there are some differences in the number of special education students by category between Math and ELA-, presumably because some students have different needs in the different content areas. Overall it does appear to be a consistent data set.
The entirety of Tim’s claims are therefore based on poor data skills and not realizing that the IBO numbers he is quoting include high schools while this data-set is for just elementary and middle schools as I clearly stated in the article. By throwing District 75 in the mix he is also trying to avoid acknowledging the level of need of students in community schools. None of the data I use is from District 75, it is all from community schools in districts 1-32.
The Author,
My apologies for claiming that you said 9.8%, not 9.4%.
That said, I am still not sure how you are arriving at 9.4%. It would be very helpful if you could identify precisely which columns you are using from the spreadsheet. When I make the calculation using the data for traditional district schools (rows 3-1090) and the columns for ELA (EV), I come up with 7.4% self-contained.
I’m also not sure it is safe to assume that the data is consistent or pristine. You only have to look at the first two schools on the list, PS 15 and PS 19, to find that the totals for SC, ICT, and SETTS do not add up to the IEP% for the entire school listed in column E. The differences are larger than what would be caused by rounding.
Because this data was used for scoring purposes on progress reports, I suspect that the population percentages in columns EV, FG, etc. are from testing grades only, and that is what accounts for the discrepancy. Since special ed status rates are much lower in the non-testing grades (interesting, that!)–14.2% in K, 15.7% in 1st, and 18.0 in 2nd, per the IBO–while at the same time enrollment in those grades is higher than testing grades, if you determined SC #s by simply multiplying SC% by overall school enrollment, it would have produced an inaccurately high number of kids in self-contained settings. But even in doing exactly that, I still only came up with 7.4%.
With grades 9-12 removed from the IBO data, the overall special education rate is 18.6%. Again, I’m extremely skeptical that self-contained students make up more than half of the special ed students in Grades K-8.
My remarks about District 75 were made in entirely separate comments that had nothing to do with my critques or doubts about the data, and your raising them here is a red herring.
Thanks in advance for any further clarifications you can provide. I’ll add another comment later about why it sure as hell does matter that there are significant numbers of traditional district schools that educate zero or token numbers of self-contained kids, especially since that was the case long before charters came along.
Tim — Ultimately we can only guess what’s in the mind of The Author, but I was able to replicate the 9.4% figure by (1) looking at rows 3-1090, (2) throwing out all the schools with percentages of zero, (3) summing all the non-zero percentages, and (4) dividing that sum by the number of rows with non-zero percentages. In other words, I can replicate the 9.4% if I ignore all the district schools that don’t have any of these students.
Of course, this 9.4% figure is an average of averages (excluding all averages that are zero percent), not a percentage of the overall elementary and middle-school population. The overall percentage is 7.4%, as you note.
Tim: Not sure why you keep on making mistakes but column EV averages to 9.4%. Maybe check the function you are using.
Your speculations about the number of special education students in early grades are interesting but irrelevant to the point of the article. Even if your miscalculations were correct it is clear that the researchers who wrote the article in the NY Daily News that I was responding to were being dishonest when they claimed ““Success Academy schools serve a similar share of special needs students relative to their zoned counterparts.” They were therefore also lying when they wrote that “Success Academy students scored… ahead of others from equivalent backgrounds” since they did not in fact control for equivalent backgrounds, let alone the attrition effect.
It is unclear why you keep on raising the red herring of the handful of other schools in New York City that serve a privileged student body. I agree that is a topic worthy of discussion but it is also entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand so it is fishy that you keep on bringing it up. In fact you are employing the exact same rhetorical trick described in this https://dianeravitch.net/2014/08/28/beware-the-charter-attrition-game/ article.
The pieces in the NY Times and Daily News that I was responding to claimed that Success Academy schools serve the same students as local community public schools and put those schools to shame. Moskowitz makes the similar claims as she hints to a future mayoral campaign. The data clearly show that this is a lie. By attempting to compare Success Academy to the small sub-set of schools that serve a privileged student body you too are acknowledging that they are lying. And that’s all that needs to be said on the topic at hand.
Okay, so you got 9.4% by taking the average of the percentages in the range EV3 to EV1090.
That isn’t the average percentage of self-contained enrollment at all NYC DOE K-8 community schools. That is the average percentage of self-contained enrollment at NYC DOE K-8 community schools that *actually enroll self-contained students*. Many, as I noted before, do not.
As my high school trigonometry and statistics teacher liked to remind kids who were inclined to skip class and risk missing a pop quiz, “Zeros don’t average well.” Put zeros in for schools that are missing data (i.e, schools that enroll 0% SC kids) and re-run the formula. It’ll be 8.3 percent, and again, I believe that as this percentage appears to be derived from the testing grades, which have lower enrollments and considerably higher rates of SWDs, the true average is probably even lower still.
I also now realize that I made another significant error in interpreting your original post: it is entirely possible, of course, for the average DOE school to be ~8.3% self-contained, but for self-contained kids to make up less than 8.3%of the overall DOE enrollment. The overall number is probably in the ballpark of whatever I calculated off the IBO report, 6-7%.
So hopefully that puts the data issues to rest. I disagree that it is irrelevant to point out that many of the city’s highest performing zoned schools serve very few or literally no self-contained children. The same is true of “progressive” unzoned schools like MSC and the Central Park Easts. It underscores the fact that as current state education law is written, it is permissible for local zoned schools, charter schools, and unzoned/selective schools to pass the buck for students who need self-contained classes to someone else.
A blank column does not equal 0. It equals a blank. The reasons that the DOE doesn’t fill in the data include the raw size of the population. So the school may have 14 self-contained students and in a school of 140 students they would be 10% of the student population. That is higher than the citywide average yet the spreadsheet would leave the cell blank.
Additionally the article was calculating a relative comparison to figure out if the claims that Success Academy has the same number of special education students were correct which they obviously are not. Since Success Academy schools would fall under the same data rules that is the cleanest way to do the calculation.
All this goes to show is that the article was correct.
Tom, I’m aware the DOE suppresses low raw numbers to preserve confidentiality, but that appears not to have occurred in this case, or if it did, the threshold for suppression was set at a very low number: PS 30 in Brooklyn reports an enrollment of 364 and a SC rate of 1.4, which is five kids. Checking very quickly, I found a handful of other schools reporting single-digit numbers of kids as well. Assuming that the threshold is five, unless a school with a suppressed percentage’s total enrollment is 50 kids or less, it is going to bring down the average.
Similarly and most importantly, many of those blanks truly are zeros. Again, quickly confirming for one school (I’m starting to not have so much fun going through this report and DOE websites), PS 290 has zero SC kids on last year’s register or on its two most recently available special education service delivery reports.
At worst Success’s claim falls into their usual bag of semantic tricks–using proficiency rates rather than scale scores to claim their superiority to Scarsdale, PS 321, whomever, e.g. Comparing their poverty rate to local neighborhood schools by lumping together free-lunch and reduced-price kids, knowing full well that Success invariably has a much higher ratio of reduced-price kids, who are far more likely to have a parent who works and who finished high school, and who score at least a grade level higher than free-lunch kids on 4th/8th grade NAEP math and ELA tests.
But here, it does seem that Success is at least in the ballpark of the DOE average for kids with IEPs (18-19%), and I think the accusation that they are not serving enough kids with the greatest needs is greatly undercut by the fact that there are many traditional public schools that aren’t, either, including some in Harlem and the Bronx.
Moving past the data and Success’s truthiness: what happens when a kid who is zoned for PS 290 and who needs a self-contained setting goes to enroll at the school? How does that process differ from a child who requires self-contained services wins a spot in the lottery at a Success school that doesn’t have self-contained classes?
Tim: Your posts are becoming a bit silly obsessing about irrelevant points. The DOE states very clearly that their minimum reporting number is 15 which means that you cannot assume that a blank is equal to zero as you wanted to. You were clearly wrong in your initial comments about the average ratio of MRE students in a typical public school (you initially claimed it was 5.3% and are now up to about 9% once you stop using your trick of turning every blank into a zero). You are also clearly missing the entire point if you want to compare the selection of students by Success Academy to the selection of students at Scarsdale since that is exactly what the media and Moskowitz claim they are not doing. You also seem to have abandoned your earlier claim that the attrition rate at Success Academy was a non-issue. You had first asked what the attrition rate was at other selective schools that you chose and once it was pointed out that it is 1% a year- that is 90% lower than the yearly attrition rate at Success Academy- you never admitted that you were wrong. You also refuse to address any of the other issues such as the low growth scores and the evidence of narrow test prep throughout the Success Academy curriculum. You also refuse to address the English Language Learner issue and the evidence that Success Academy creams there as well.
Perhaps you are a special education advocate which may explain your obsession on the single issue of whether or not every single one of the 1,600 public schools in New York serves their fair share of special education students. That is a good cause and good luck with it. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the claims made by and on behalf of Success Academy are true. They are not.
Tom, if the minimum reporting number is 15, why are there so many schools on this spreadsheet that are reporting fewer than 15 SC students? I don’t follow this point.
Tom, it may very well be that the usual practice is for the DOE to suppress data when it involves fewer than 15 students, but that didn’t happen in this case. There are numerous schools reporting a single digit number of self-contained students, and one that reports only 5.
As stated in other posts, the average percentage of self-contained students served at each DOE school is a different number than the percentage of total DOE enrollment that is in a self-contained setting.
I haven’t abandoned my claim about Success’s attrition rate–it isn’t substantially different from the rate at adjacent district schools with similar percentages of minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Though perhaps greater numbers of Success families are “privileged” compared to their neighbors, we are still talking about families who are just a step or two ahead of poverty and whose childcare/commuting situations are a house of cards. The Author is absolutely right that the attrition rate is minimal at schools that have <10% FRPL-eligible students, PA budgets in the high six/low seven figures, and where tiny two-bedroom apartments rent for $5000/month.
My final thought: the only possible "gotcha" for Success is the backfilling issue. It isn't sexy and it sure isn't easy to explain, but it is the only area where they may not be in compliance with the letter and (certainly) the spirit of the state charter school law.
The Author, one last question: what is your source for the claim that charter schools grade their own state tests?
Fantastic piece.
Many thanks to the brave data analyst for revealing that the Empress has no clothes! And shame on the journalists (a generous designation for them) writing for our major newspapers who don’t let the truth stand in the way of what they think is a good story.
Yes, excellent exposure of Eva’s distortions. Problem is she has privileged circulation in the media for lies about her bogus success schools. Can we circulate this rebuttal without a named author? Can we ask a respected education professor to vet the claims and sources in the rebuttal and publish a follow-up in her/his name? Too good to let this documentation sit; also must send it registered mail to Mayor DeBlasio and NYTimes editorial page director.
Excellent, factual expose of The Evil One.
Do we have a new “Evil One.” I thought that sobriquet was reserved for the Rheeject. Or did she forfeit it when she changed her name??
Well after all, Duane, she is Evil Moskowitz.
I understand we have to meet the enemy on the field of battle that has been designated, but we don’t have to fight on the terms they choose. Let’s give little Eva her “success” at posting “good scores”, but let’s talk about what successful schools really look like, then compare Evita’s empire.
Successful schools meet all kids where they are and move them forward. They welcome the challenges of individual variances and model an inclusive society where all are valued for the contributions they are able to make. Successful schools create a mosaic reflective of the society we wish to have, where all have a place and add in a unique and positive way to the whole.
Successful schools retain most of their teachers. Veteran teachers – experts, really – have value because of their experience and ability to reflect on past practices and to evaluate whether “new” ideas have worth. They create stable learning communities where novice teachers can find mentors who guide them in the areas of classroom management, curriculum development, parent relationships and children’s health and well being. These novice teachers become more accomplished over time and remain in the same school environment, extending the institutional knowledge and maintaining community ties and involvement.
Successful schools retain most of their students. Thus, siblings attending a school for the first time enter a familiar environment, facilitating their transition to the classroom. Teachers know the challenges a given family may be facing and do not have to start from ground zero. This is especially pertinent for kids of poverty, with a history of homelessness, undocumented family members, lack of access to health care, or losses due to death and violence.
Most of all, successful schools provide support to all their members – kids, parents, teachers, administrators. They do not rank some as better or more valuable than others, but are inclusive, with the idea that everybody counts.
I’m sure if we put all our brains together we can come up with some more characteristics of truly successful schools. They won’t look like Evita’s.
Even a broken clock is right two times a day:
“Men lie and women lies but numbers don’t.” [“Dr.” Steve Perry, “America’s Most Trusted Educator,” channeling rapper Jay-Z]
😏
And some other numbers that don’t lie:
[start quote]
Eva Moskowitz, the firebrand chief of the city’s fastest growing charter chain, isn’t just backed by Wall Street, she’s officially moved there — with Wall Street-type salaries to boot.
Last November, Moskowitz, who for years boasted of opening her Success Academy Charter Schools in the city’s poorest neighborhoods, quietly shifted her corporate headquarters from Central Harlem to 95 Pine St. (aka 120 Wall St.).
The new offices will cost her organization $31 million over 15 years, according to its most recent financial report.
The same report shows Moskowitz received an eye-popping $567,000 during the 2012-2013 school year. That’s a raise of $92,000 from the previous year, and more than double the $212,000 paid to Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña.
[end quote]
😱
Link: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/gonzalez-eva-moskowitz-isn-backed-wall-street-moved-article-1.1918293
She’s a saint! It’s all for the kids! She’s worth a lot more than that! And as for that lazy LIFO-loving Carmen Fariña, well, she’s paid far far more than she’s worth.*
😡
[*For the shills and trolls that have been doing too much CCSS ‘closet’ reading with the lights turned out and no extra flashlight batteries: Satire—the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.]
But can’t we just ignore the numbers, the stats, the figures, the hard data? Can’t we just say that [echoing a famous purveyor of masking tape for inappropriate uses] it sucks to use them to discredit the self-proclaimed “education reform” movement?
“I reject that mind-set.” [Michelle Rhee]
In a Johnsonally sort of way, natcherly…
😎
Despite these truths, the parents who want their kids to attend a more “prestigious” school will fight to get their kids into this program. They don’t care that there are only a few ESL or Special Ed students, in fact, that is a plus on their minds. They want the feel of a private, exclusive school without the expense. They are willing to buy the uniforms and help out with the fund raisers (or other events) because that is a part of the package.
It’s not so much about the children, it’s about the parents. If the kids do well, so much the better. Who cares if some of the “undeserving” pupils get booted, as long as their precious one remains. However, the one fact on this list which does detract from the Success Academy mystique is that the none of graduates were placed into any of the “elite” public high schools. However, I’m not sure that this is enough to stop the frenzy.
Perception is everything, facts just get in the way.
I agree with this. Most parents just see what’s on the surface and many actually like that the discipline problem children are removed. In the neighborhood/comprehensive schools, discipline is a major issue in Dallas.
As someone that spent over three decades teaching ESL/ELLs or LEP students in New York, I have some insight into the entrance criteria.. When a student registers, a home-language survey is completed. If the family states a second language is spoken, the ESL teacher gives a screening. If the child scores high enough on the screening, he/she never receives ESL instruction because the child is does not qualify for service. A proficient student should not be counted as ELL. All students in the ESL/ELL program are not proficient in English, and that is why they receive instruction. Proficient in English equals exit from ESL/ELL. Likewise, we don’t round students up for ESL/ELL services based on Hispanic surnames. Many bilingual students do not require ESL service. At least, that was the procedures as of five years ago when I left. Based on what I know, I would argue that the proficient ELLs from the Success Academies should not be considered English language learners since they have already proven they don’t qualify for the designation..
Christine Langhoff: very well put.
And successful schools don’t model unethical and immoral behavior.
From #5 of the above posting: “Public schools serve all students, from all circumstances, at all times (even when charter schools kick those very students out right after “census day,” the day districts use to calculate enrollment for budget purposes).”
The material in parentheses describe the mid-year dump.
From a comment earlier this year on this blog by Jack:
[start quote]
Case-in-point: AUDUBON MIDDLE SCHOOL, out here in the inner-city of LAUSD, in Los Angeles, California.
Dr. DeWayne Davis, the principal at LAUSD’s Audubon Middle school, wrote Dr. Diane Ravitch a letter which Diane posted on her site. In this letter, Dr. Davis condemned the “midyear dump” of students from the nearby charter schools. Every year, just after winter break, there are about 168 or so kids that have left those charter schools—either kicked out or “counseled out”. I can’t recall the exact figures, but he said about 162 of those are FBB (Far Below Basic)—kids who score low because of being innately “slower”, non-cooperative, “Special Ed”, newcomers to the country who are brand new to English, those students just plain not willing to work hard, from distressed home lives, foster care, homeless, etc.
Davis tells about the great difficulties that teachers have in their efforts to absorb these charter cast-off’s into their classes. For the next month or two—or for even the remainder of the school year—teachers and the pre-existing students report varying states of chaos as a result of the nearby charter schools engaging in this despicable “midyear dump”.
Of course, think of the effect this has on Audubon’s scores—they go DOWN—and on the nearby charter schools—they go UP.
DR. DEWAYNE DAVIS: “It is ridiculous that they (charter operators) can pick and choose kids and pretend that they are raising scores when, in fact, they are just purging nonperforming students at an alarming rate. That is how they are raising their scores, not by improving the performance of students.
“Such a large number of FBB students will handicap the growth that the Audubon staff initiated this year, and further, will negatively impact the school’s overall scores as we continue to receive a recurring tide of low-performing students.”
[end quote]
Link: https://dianeravitch.net/2014/02/15/reader-offers-a-dose-of-common-sense-about-high-test-scores/
In a follow-up question, Jack confirmed my worst suspicions:
[start quote]
Yes, when a charter dumps a child, the money does NOT follow that child. They have to keep the students for a week—or a month—and they get to keep the entire year’s money allocated for that child.
Put another way, there is no pro rata amount of money that goes along with the child. If the charter kicks the kid out after a month, a nine-month allocation does not go along with that child.
Whenever public school advocates try to change this, the charter folks throw up every roadblock and obstacle that they can.
[end quote]
Not just in Los Angeles. Louisiana Purchase also confirms:
[start quote]
In Utah, anyway, once the “October 1st Count” has occurred, the charter school keeps ALL of the money for those students for the entire year. Thus, any students sent back to public schools after that date come with no money. My colleagues are getting tired of me complaining about this. I have a student this year who left two days before the count to the “better opportunity” of a charter school. He was back within 6 weeks, now credit deficient. His public school now has to pick up the slack of his missing credits, and we have no extra money to do it. Happens every year, although not at the staggering numbers of Audubon Middle.
[end quote]
Charters are the keystone of the “new civil rights movement of our time”? I suppose so, if by “civil rights” one means the right of a shameless few to monetize OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN in mad dog pursuit of $tudent $ucce$$.
The owner of this blog has very carefully stated—and I much appreciate the honesty—that “I have no personal grudge against Eva Moskowitz. On the few occasions when we have appeared together, we have had very cordial conversation.”
However, when it comes to Eva Moskowitz the edupreneur who never found a child she couldn’t convert into a data point that made ₵ent¢:
“You have a nice personality, but not for a human being.” [Henny Youngman]
And not even an old dead Greek guy…
😎
P.S. Considering the ways in which the NY DAILY NEWS reporters Jarod Apperson and John Keltz used numerical & other data in the “school sweepstakes” they so badly misunderstood, perhaps they took the same math class as Henny Youngman:
“I played a great horse yesterday! It took seven horses to beat him!”
P.P.S. Although, to be honest, Youngman was just joking, while Apperson and Keltz were dead serious.
Thank you so much Diane!!! This is amazing and thank you for all the links!!!!
Mindy
HSA1 Co-located survivor
(Just barely!)
Charter schools are the biggest scam since biodiesel fuel.
The only rebuttal here that is substantial and has merit is the one that addresses backfill. As I’ve said before, Success shouldn’t receive a single new charter or a renewal until they fill empty seats in every grade.
There is no way that the average community NYC DOE school has a 9.8% most-restrictive special ed population. Perhaps if you include District 75 schools–a separate district that was created to better serve children with the most profound disabilities–as well as the kids who receive services from private schools at DOE expense it all adds up to 9.8%, but at the average DOE school? Not even close. And taken from last year’s final registers, these are the rates of MRE kids at a selection of the city’s most sought-after and highest-performing zoned elementary schools:
PS 321: 0.61%; PS 29: 1%; PS 6: 0.28%; PS 41: 0.13%; PS 234: 0.0%; PS 290: 0.0%; PS 87: 0.22%; PS 9: 0.31%.
Quite a lot of schools aren’t educating their fair share of special ed kids, it would seem.
Success’s 20% pass rate for ELL students doesn’t seem that great, but it’s sure better than the 3.4% pass rate for ELLs at DOE schools.
The accusations that Success actively counsels out families are almost wholly unsubstantiated. The teacher attrition is irrelevant. The performance of the first graduating Success class is only a possible red flag, not a smoking gun. And of course there’s no discussion about the types of zoned schools Success students are coming from.
Hopefully the study behind the Daily News piece will undergo further peer review.
Dear Tim,
I have several responses to your comment, however I will only focus one one. You claim that the “accusations that Success actively counsels out families are almost wholly unsubstantiated.” Then please explain to me, why my school has so many of their “cast-offs?”
Have a good day!
Mindy Rosier
Mindy, by all means you should connect these families with the SUNY Charter School Institute or (more importantly) Juan Gonzalez at the Daily News (@juangon68) or Beth Fertig at WNYC (@bethfertig). Both would be keenly interested to find evidence of counseling out.
I probably have a narrower definition of counseling out than you do, to be sure.
Tim, Juan Gonzalez is fully aware of what has been going on. He has even done a piece on my school. Beth knows as well. Check out Trymaine Lee on MSNBC. My building is where Success Academy had started. I have 8 years of stories. For some of them, check this out;
Mindy, what puzzles me is why so many students, a great majority, disappear from SA schools. Did they move? Were they unhappy? Inquiring minds want to know.
Hi Diane. Over the last 8 years, my District 75 school has taken on many SA students. Where the other ones go? Who knows? They don’t track them. I did read something last month that supposedly SA didn’t even have it on record as to where those students went. Wish I kept that link, I know it was data tied. It is also my understanding that many of those parents feel shamed about their child being “counseled-out” or however they want to word it, so they don’t come forward. Many parents are manipulated there, so once again, who knows? They have been shady since the beginning and what they have done to my school over the years especially the last year is not only unforgivable but honestly, quite disgusting.
I had sent you this link on Twitter. In case you haven’t seen it yet, here is my story. I too was ignored by Bergner.
Mindy
Re: Claim #5, I agree with Tim that the backfill argument is compelling (although I’m not sure the law requires SA to backfill). In addition, it’s unrebutted. SA doesn’t deny that it doesn’t backfill.
The rebuttal of Claim #4 only goes halfway, though. It’s one thing to argue that comparing SA’s attrition to that of “other, nearby community schools” is not a convincing way to establish that “the overall rate of attrition at Success is far from alarming.” But that doesn’t actually tell me whether SA’s attrition rate actually is alarming or not. How does SA’s attrition rate compare to other schools that the author (or anyone else who wants to chime in) believes *are* valid points of comparison?
For the uninitiated, here are two descriptions of District 75, one from the Advocates for Children’s guide to special education, the other from the DOE:
“District 75 is a separate school district intended for students with severe needs that require more intensive support.”
“District 75 provides citywide educational, vocational, and behavorial support programs for students who are on the autism spectrum, have significant cognitive delays, are severely emotionally challenged, sensory impaired, and/or multiply disabled.”
Mindy, assuming that the kids your school is taking in from Success legitimately meet the standard for entry into a D75 school, I don’t think this constitutes ‘counseling out’. As I noted in my initial comment on this topic, Success is far from alone in having zero or token numbers of self-contained kids, and D75 kids usually require services that traditional district schools (and charters) simply can’t provide.
There are probably a lot of separate discussions to be had here–is the D75 model warehousing, how far can the mainstreaming envelope be pushed, should the state charter law be changed to actually require charters to enroll all types of special ed students, or to encourage the creation of special-ed only schools. If I’m wrong to assume that the decision for a child to enter a D75 school isn’t made lightly, and that there’s no difference in that process whether the kid is coming from a charter school or the zone for PS 321 or PS 29, please educate me.
Tim, SA and other charters are also known for telling the parents of low-scoring students that they must repeat a grade, especially if they will be entering the prime test-taking grades of fourth and eighth.
Rather than formally “counseling out” these students, they provide this “incentive” for the parents to remove the child and enroll them in the local public school.
Michael, I think that retaining students is a terrible idea, whether it happens at a charter or a district school–intensive tutoring and added class time are a much better solution. When Democracy Prep completed the first charter takeover of another charter (Harlem Day), they held back 100/250 of the returning kids and made no mention of it when congratulating themselves for raising the proficiency rates in one year. That is a real-world example on a massive scale of your point that charters manipulate the timing of retention to max out test scores.
However, it needs to be said that DOE schools are holding back a crap-ton of students, too: Advocates for Children just released a report showing that a full 25% of NYC DOE middle schoolers have been held back at least once, and about 5% have been held back THREE times (mindboggling). Kids are leaving charters for a district school that won’t hold them back, I’m sure, but kids are also probably leaving district schools to shop for another district school that will promote them, too.
The bottom line to me is that I think most charters are very upfront about the fact they consider retention to be a go-to move, and all other things being equal and aboveboard, I wouldn’t define a kid who leaves rather than repeating a year as being “counseling out.”
Tim- The point is that most ELL students are should fail the Common Core, if they are accurately tested for their level of English. Not all ELLs are the same. Beginners and intermediate students cannot pass the test because they are not ready. Advanced students start to be able to compete, but they still cannot read or write like most native speakers. Even “proficient” students will have some difficulties with nuanced vocabulary and sentence structure. My criticism of the ELL numbers for Success is that proficient students aren’t counted in public school ELL numbers because they have exited the program. This may account for the difference in higher passing numbers of ELLs at Success.. Obviously higher numbers of students will pass the test if we include proficient students in the count. We may not be comparing students fairly if proficient students are included in the Success data, but not in the public school data..
Tim: We don’t know who you are though you clearly are a teller of hyperboles just like the Success Academy defenders called out in the article.
1) Go to the spreadsheet linked to in the article http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1550033E-3F15-4746-BD1A-DF3364721785/0/2012_2013_EMS_PR_Results_2014_04_24.xlsx, 2) Click on the “all information tab”
3) Add up all the numbers in column EV which is the % of self-contained students in regular community schools (NOT district 75 as you misleadingly claimed)
4) It adds up to 9.4% citywide in districts 1-32 (note again NOT district 75) and 14.1% in the districts 4 and 5 which include Harlem. This is just what the author said.
Please stop lying and trolling. Let the truth speak.
FYI Tim, in my building besides my District 75 school and HSA1, we also share space with a traditional public school. That TPS has approx. 27% of special needs students.
“We don’t know who you are”
I don’t know what “we” you represent in this club, and I don’t know who you are either, but I know who Tim is, at least for these purposes. He’s a parent with children in NYC public schools. Not a teacher, not a retired teacher, not an ed reformer, not an ed consultant, not a semi-pro “parent activist” who doesn’t need a regular income. He’s a “regular parent,” a member of the species invoked here daily in headlines and comments but very rarely spotted. He knows more about the NYC public school system than most who comment here. His comments here and on other sites include the most intelligent, credible, and convincing critiques of Success Academy that I have ever seen, anywhere. If he’s a troll, bring on the trolls.
SWCATK,
I don’t know what percentage is represented way over there in the weeds of column EV (you’ll note that the column heading is simply “population %”), but whatever it is, it isn’t the simple percentage of self-contained/MRE kids attending the school (my hunch is it is weighted vs. peer schools somehow). Whatever the case, it isn’t even close to being accurate for the schools my kids attend. Then I started looking up outliers (42% of the kids at the Secondary School of Law are in self-contained classes, really?), and found the number didn’t match what was on the school’s end-of-year register (Secondary School of Law had 0 MRE kids).
As I pretty clearly stated in my original post, I wasn’t saying for sure that the average DOE school didn’t have 9.8% self-contained kids, only that the figure seemed implausibly high to me. Now that I’ve had time to do a little research, I’m fairly certain the number is too high–by about 100%. Please refer to the most recent IBO report on NYC DOE school demographics: http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/2014edindicatorsreport.pdf
The first red flag is that the IBO reports 18.1% of NYC DOE students have an IEP (this number is verified by the broadest level statistics supplied by the DOE’s demographic snapshot). There’s simply no way that 54% of special ed kids are in a self-contained/MRE setting. This was probably what triggered my smell test.
If you look on page 14 of the report (p. 20 of the PDF itself), you’ll see percentages listed for the total number of kids in each type of self-contained class. It doesn’t differentiate 12:1:1 kids who are in D75 vs. non-D75; I’ll give you all of them. I assumed that 8:1:1, 6:1:1, and 12:1:4 formats are found exclusively in D75 schools. If you add up the 12:1:1, 12:1, and 15:1 numbers, it comes to 29.7% of special ed kids, which is 54,612 students (I generously calculated off the higher total number of special ed kids provided on p. 12). That comes to about 5.3% of the total enrollment, which to be honest is still higher than I would have guessed, but it is at least plausible. 9.8% isn’t plausible, nor is it supported by the link you provided.
Flerp, I am printing out your internet comment and mailing it to my mother.
I didn’t know that hypebole was a synonym for lie.
Yes, Duane, so is prevarication.
The Horizon charter chain are launching a big PR offensive in Ohio. They got dinged because of the FBI investigations and the revelations from former staff.
I love this letter. It has everything. The anti-labor talking point, the anti-government talking point. These schools are incredibly politically connected. I can ASSURE them they have nothing to fear from Ohio lawmakers or regulators!
I’m particularly amused by people who are paid wholly in public funds complaining about “bureaucrats”.
They’re respectable government contractors, unlike those nasty “government” schools!
Here’s the letter. They’re going to the statehouse to lobby next week.
Click to access Rally-Letter-14-15.pdf
Pigs is pigs.
I have been reading this article with interest, but in attempting to verify the data I have been stymied. The author links to the most general pages–the city, the state, etc. Where is he getting his numbers from? How does he know the English proficiency of Kindergarten kids? Is there a state test for K English proficiency that I don’t know about. Where did the 9.8% number come from? Can you please update the notes to provide more accurate links? Thanks!
Quizzical: I have asked the author to respond to your question. I will post.
Quizzical: the,links are accurate.
Well, there’s no one left at the NYTimes who would further investigate this. Both Winerip and Freedman are no longer covering Education. But I doubt any one in the media would pick this story up. The days of the real “60 Minutes” are gone.
AND the real “20/20” AND the real “Nightline.” All Kim Kardashian, “What Would YOU Do?” & “48 Hours (on “20/20″)” now.
Here’s my original post about “Glass Door”
and the comments about Success Academy
from a couple weeks back:
Enjoy (it’s long):
==========================================
Hey, why don’t we hear from the current and former instructors at Eva Moskowitz’ SUCCESS ACADEMY Network? Thankfully, we can actually do that, and hear the unvarnished truth that they have anonymously shared, thanks to the “Glass Door” website that provides employees an opportunity to share the good, the bad, and the ugly about the people for whom they work, and the workplace culture that they’ve experienced.
(Get it? The “glass door” gives transparency.)
Finally… FINALLY (!!!) in post-Michael-Winerip era, there is a free and independent entity that is beyond the control and clutches of Eva and her ruthless multi-million dollar PR leviathan. Indeed, Glass Door’s posted motto or promise is:
“Your trust is our top concern, so companies can’t alter or remove reviews.”
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Success-Academy-Charter-Schools-Reviews-E381408_P2.htm?sort.sortType=OR&sort.ascending=true
I just cut’-n-pasted the first 24 teacher reviews from the site above (settle in, it’s a long read if you care to read it all.)
Often I found myself asking the question, “Did I just read what I THOUGHT I read?”
For example, “FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 11” said that Eva banned any administrators or even teachers from writing letters of reference for SUCCESS teachers—current or former—who wished to teach elsewhere. As this teacher put it put it:
“They will not give you reference letter; its against company policy.”
What is this? The Hotel California? “You can check out any time you like but you’ll never be able to work again as a teacher…. that is, if I, Eva Moskowitz, have anything to say about it.” It’s like… “If I can’t control you—i..e. you leave or I push you out—I won’t help you with continuing your teaching career elsewhere.”
In my two decades of teaching in the traditional public schools, I’ve never heard of a administrator acting like this.
Some of them are even “LEAD TEACHERS”—NO. 17 is both a “CURRENT TEACHER” and a “LEAD TEACHER.”
A common refrain is that the 60-80 hour weeks make it utterly impossible to have any kind of personal life or “work-life balance”, and how they “work you until you are sick” and don’t care about your well-being.
Oh, and the workload and lifestyle make it impossible to have a family or children. But hey, wait a sec. Eva was allowed enough time that have and raise her three kids. As Orwell put it in ANIMAL FARM… “All of us are equal, but some are more equal than others.” And she makes over $ 480,000 / year.
Perhaps my favorite comment came from a teacher comparing Eva’s personality and behavior to that of a Meryl Streep movie villain (from a few years back). “FORMER TEACHER NO. 14 compared working at SUCCESS ACADEMY to…
———————————————————————————-
” ‘THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA’ — except not funny and you actually can damage hundreds of kids lives in the process.
“Any advice will fall on deaf ears because hers is a method that works well. Google ‘sick system’ and you will find SUCCESS, in its shiny, primary colored glory.”
———————————————————————————-
And the sad thing is… Eva would be flattered by this comparison, taking it as a compliment… “You’re damn right I’m like that, and if any o’ you teachers, parents, or kids got a problem with that, you can all go SUCK IT!” (not an actual quote… just a little humor)
The reviews have three criteria: PRO’s, CON’s, and ADVICE TO MANAGEMENT. I omitted the PRO’s as they were so trivial (i.e. healthy snacks and the printers work”)
I can just picture Eva in her posh Upper East Side digs reading this, and thinking, “What a bunch o’ lazy wimps and whiners! I don’t want them teaching at my schools, anyway. I wish there was a way to find out who those “CURRENT” teachers posting are, so I could fire all of ‘em!”
———————————————————————-
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 1:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“The most miserable experience I’ve ever had. ”
CON’s:
“One personal day, horrible work-life balance,
— micromanagement of employees,
— no chance for professional or personal growth,
— dictator-like school.”
ADVICE to Management:
“I think it’s too far gone.”
Does NOT Recommend — Negative Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER (& LEAD TEACHER) NO. 2:
“Do your research before accepting a job here.”
1 * STAR (out of 5)
CON’s:
“Unethical treatment of students and teachers,
— competition at all costs,
— little support for students with disability,
— retains an average of less than 50% of students,
— retains an average of 30% of staff,
— leadership and staff are replaced with no communication or explanation,
— humiliation used as main motivational tool for both students and staff,
— students struggle with anxiety,
— very little emotional or social support
— students stay silent 80% of the day, silent hallways in upper grades,
— young students told to stop crying when dealing with personal trauma,
— no work-life balance,
— CEO is in constant conflict with city government which causes ongoing location uncertainty,
— network is rapidly opening new schools while neglecting to fix all of the other dysfunctional sites first.”
Does NOT Recommend — Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 3:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“Toxic Enviorment, Developmentally Inappropriate Abusive Culture of Fear ”
CON’s: “Worked for one of the highest performing schools in the network in the Bronx.
“— Entire school focused on remaining at top of network schools assessment wise while pushing students in completely developmentally inappropriate and emotionally ABUSIVE ways.
” — When I brought up that Eva and the network and research disagrees with practices at my location, I was told the network didn’t know what they were talking about, haven’t I seen our top assessment scores, and that my primary responsibility was to make sure my classroom assessment data was up.
” — Teachers openly MOCKED 6 year olds with learning disabilities telling them they would see them in the same grade again next year because they were neither smart nor hard working and hopefully would not be in their student again- in front of the entire classroom.
” — Left work every day feeling angry at the school until I left permanently.”
ADVICE to Management:
“Teacher culture needs to be totally reformed-
— experienced total lack of professionalism by newer teachers in front of children we were meant to be models for.”
Does NOT Recommend — Negative Outlook – No Opinion of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 4:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“The mission provides so much potential, but falls short in practice ”
CON’s:
“Employees are seen as dispensable and the environment is toxic.
— Leaders rule through fear and intimidation.
— At the network office, pay is low for the hours worked.
— Turnover is extremely high.
— The organization has grown too fast.
— There are other rewarding education organizations that treat their employees better.”
Does NOT Recommend — Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 5:
“Will not shape you into the the teacher that you want to be. ”
1 * STAR (out of 5)
CON’s:
“Lack of support.
— Militaristic style of teaching to the test.
— Students did not learn content.
— Teachers had no work-life balance.”
Does NOT Recommend — No Opinion of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 6:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“Great mission, terrible culture ”
CON’s:
“The leadership team is more interested in making political statements than about choosing the right growth strategy for the organization.”
Does NOT Recommend — Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 7:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“I was an Associate Teacher ”
CON’s:
“Everything.
— Extremely high turnover due to many reasons, just a few of which are listed here.
— Hours are insane,
— management doesn’t care about the employees,
— the style of teaching and discipline is horrifying,
— I didn’t like who I became after working here,
— there are unrealistic expectations of teachers (like I need to log every phone call I make to a parent!?),
— and the feedback is ALWAYS negative without any sense of “you can do it” or “we can do this together”,
— it’s “Get your f*cking sh*t together!”
ADVICE to Management:
“You’ll have a much happier staff if you recognize that employees are PEOPLE who want to have lives outside of work, don’t want to be micromanaged, and will see better results if you approach criticism in a more constructive way rather than beating up your teachers.”
Does NOT Recommend — Neutral Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER (& LEAD TEACHER) NO. 8:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“Overworked and unreasonable expectations on staff, micromanaging”
CON’s:
” — 1. Micromanaging by leadership
“— 2. No autonomy in your classroom, it’s like they’re making all their teachers into replicas of the one model they’re looking for
“— 3. Overworked school day – I would arrive by 6:45 am and I felt like I was running behind already.
— I would work till 5:00 pm at school, then bolt out the door to get home to my family.
— I would tirelessly grade papers while on the subway, try to respond to the absurd amount of emails and constantly changing meetings, expectations, etc.
— I would work on school work for extra hours at night and it was never enough.
— If this had been my first teaching job out of college, I would have hated teaching.
— Luckily I had 6 years experience in a great school district in a different state.
“The stories I had to tell about this job made everyone in my life tell me to quit. There was so much stress and anxiety going into each week of the job.”
Does NOT Recommend — No Opinion of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CURRENT SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 9:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“Very low morale”
CON’s:
“All teachers are extremely overworked.
— 12-hour work days are the norm.
— Very, very little prep time during the day, as meetings are held during “prep” periods.
— Management encourages bizarre competition between teachers, and as a result, morale is low.
” — Students are pushed out of the school if they exhibit any negative behaviors or if their data is low.
— In either case, management will meet with the family to tell them that this school is ‘just not the right fit for them’.
— If that doesn’t work, they will suspend the child ad nauseum or even push them down into a lower grade, so that their exhausted parents give in.
— It’s absurd that this school is publicly funded when it does not serve the population it purports to serve.
— It is honestly more a school for gifted students than a school working to close the achievement gap.
— I include this in my review because it contributes to the low morale of the school – your students who you love are constantly being kicked out.”
Does NOT Recommend — Negative Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 10:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
CON’s:
”
ADVICE to Management:
“Value your teachers more by making their workday more manageable.
— This will lead to teacher retention.
— 6:30am – 6:30pm is not sustainable, as the teacher turnover rate clearly attests.
” — Also, value the children who are told they don’t belong at our school.
“If we can’t help them, what are we doing in the education business?”
Does NOT Recommend — Negative Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 11:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“Not fulfilling, will not help you with career. ”
CON’s:
“I worked exceptionally hard and efficient, and they rewarded me by not hiring me after the internship ended saying “There was not enough work to be done”. There was not enough work to be done because I completed all the tasks. 1 month later surprisingly they found enough work again to open up the position.
” — They will not give you reference letter, its against company policy.
” — You spend days working on projects that they themselves do not want to work on. Some of which include creating thousands of addition and subtraction problems.
” — You’re supposed to work with the Math team however they are never in the office, and you are left alone to do meaningless tasks.
” — You get paid terribly, and not treated as part of the company or team.
” — They exclude interns from meetings, both company and team.
” — Terrible pay despite working you to the bone.”
ADVICE to Management:
“Recognize talent and hard work.
— Be honest about work performance instead of hiding behind HR.”
Does NOT Recommend — Positive Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 12:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“High Turnover, Poor Work Life Balance, Unprofessional Managers ”
CON’s:
“Unprofessional Directors and poor work-life balance. Focus on test scores and nothing else.
” — Staff usually stay less than one year.
” — There are so many HR/Recruiting positions available because the staff turnover is so high,
” — they are constantly searching for other candidates.”
ADVICE to Management:
“Look at the Enrollment and Talent/HR Team and Teacher Dept turnover. Why do certain directors have extremely high turnover and are not being held accountable?”
Does NOT Recommend — Negative Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 13:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“High Turnover, Poor Management ”
CON’s:
” — 1. Poor Management: Management tends to fire those who voice opposition. Look at the turnover data for the Network office…team Ops, team Enrollment…etc.
” — 2. Mostly young, inexperienced staff. The poor management is directly reflective of inexperienced staff.
” — 3. Unrealistic work expectations with no additional compensation or concern for staff well being. In a “no excuses” environment, even being ill with cancer is no excuse for taking a day off.
” — 4. I cannot stress enough how poor the management of department directors and other senior staff is. My manager was the most unprofessional, unqualified person I had worked with in my career.
ADVICE to Management:
“Examine the high turnover rate and be honest about it. There are several directors whose turnover rates for their departments should be analyzed.”
Does NOT Recommend — Neutral Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 14:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“Abusive, panic-driven environment justified with high reward potential ”
CON’s:
“— Erosion of any work/life balance – actually highly, HIGHLY discouraged in culture
— Constant environment of panic maintained to encourage high effort and self-doubt
— Eva is abusive and no one is willing to admit it
— Recommended to young individuals who believe in giving 115% for “the cause,” and have not yet developed concept of “self-boundaries” or “self-care”
— Upon school visitations, their very strict classroom rules for students also border on abusive
— While building critical reading and writing skills in kids, also severely stamps down on self-expression or autonomy (punishments are plentiful, harsh, and unexplained)
— Absolute silence in hallways, even teachers are discouraged from speaking
— Teachers are kept in constant fear of surprise visits and sample collections for evaluation.”
ADVICE to Management:
“To management? Why bother? The network team waited weeks to “introduce me” to the Director, waiting for the right moment. WEEKS. I began to wonder if I should chew on a leaf in an office corner until she became accustomed to my scent. This is how afraid her staff members are, or at the least, this was the culture they tried to project.
“Her direct inferiors are constantly insulted, sent to run on impossible tasks, validated for their submission to her, or ridiculed/fired if not. I had extreme difficulty maintaining any hard boundaries — much less soft ones — during my time there. The literacy team is stressed out beyond belief; they put so much work into what they do but it is never good enough. It was incredible to watch.
‘THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA’ — except not funny and you actually can damage hundreds of kids lives in the process.
Any advice will fall on deaf ears because hers is a method that works well. Google “sick system” and you will find Success, in its shiny, primary colored glory.”
———-
“My advice goes out to the staff.
” — The high turnover occurs because those able to identify the system for what it is and recognize that when faced with self-respect/self-care vs. ‘the cause,’ they should choose to protect what’s left and move on.
” — In addition, once you step quietly back from the whole thing, you will learn that ‘the cause’ has gotten lost in politics, panic and upkeep. ‘The cause’ is potentially damaging to the students that attend the school.
” — If ‘the cause’ is yourself — meaning, you are a young, vibrant, 20-something year old who wants to feel that you’ve single-handedly changed the world — this is probably a better place for you than the ACTUAL NYC education system, which can be disheartening, without guidance or such ripe upward mobility. Here you’ve got micromanaging overhead, and if you ‘survive’ long enough, you can really take your experience everywhere.
“Dear prospective employee: In many aspects, teaching is like social work. Social Work institutions highly, highly encourage you to maintain self-boundaries and self-care. Otherwise you will burn out in a ruthless, demanding, draining career of unrequited love.
“The same way many social-work industries can take advantage of the big hearts and self-validating determination, so can ‘well-intended’ charter schools. Once you find yourself in a position where you have to negotiate your ‘non-negotiable’ (I highly recommend you walk in with one) on a consistent basis, consider stepping back for a long, long moment. Breathe. You will probably ride a cycle similar to breaking up from an unhealthy relationship, but I promise you your quality of life is not worth it.
“In any case, they can replace you so quickly. I think that is what scares everyone the most.”
Does NOT Recommend — Positive Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 15:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
CON’s:
“—Culture – the tone of the organization is driven top-down. Eva and her direct reports are unafraid to bully others and do not show appreciation for those working for them. That trickles down through the organization in a very significant way.
” — Highly-political / not-business minded – Though the organization is a non-profit there is ZERO business sense in making decisions which is sorely needed. Decisions are almost always motivated by political motives.
” — Physical work environment – the actual office is pretty terrible. They signed a 10 year lease on a space that they outgrew in about a year and a half. Some of us were in the former storage spaces with no actual desk phones or any natural light. Some people are in satellite offices with significantly longer commutes.
” — Extremely high turnover with no institutional memory – because people leave so often and the organization does not do a good job of standardizing procedures or capturing information there is a lot of reinventing the wheel that happens when someone comes into a job.”
ADVICE to Management:
“Listen to what your employees are telling you – both current and former – and actually try to take some steps to make a change!”
Does NOT Recommend — Neutral Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CURRENT SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 16:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“The worst—I repeat—The WORST teaching job I have ever had in my life! ”
CON’s:
” — Long hours (minimum 60 hours a week…if your lucky). They have no regard for work-life balance.
— Awful management-Management (Principals, Vice Principals, etc) are trained to run schools like factories and they do.
— Employees are treated like they are just another number not like human beings.
— They have no intrest in teacher retention.
— If you don’t believe me, Google the turnover rate for thier schools.
— Some are at 60%! Lastly, at time the expectations are unrealistic.”
ADVICE to Management:
“Learn how to manage people in a way that makes them want to work for your company for the rest of their lives. I have seen some of the most passionate teachers quit this job.
Does NOT Recommend — Neutral Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CURRENT SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER (& LEAD TEACHER) NO. 17:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“Too miserable to stay, no matter how much you are there “for the kids” ”
CON’s:
“— Arrogant young management
— ZERO personal AND ZERO sick days
— little prep time when accounting for extra meetings
— leadership talks to teachers like they are students
ADVICE to Management:
“I LOVE the mission of Success Charter Network. I love the kids there.
— But I simply cannot stay on board with the unprofessional tone of leadership and the unrealistic demands on us as teachers.
— Working 80 hour weeks and still not completing my ‘assignments’ at a high level tells me there is something wrong with the model. \
— I actually wish the work environment was better so I could stick around for the kids and their families. I am a well educated professional and a highly effective teacher that should not be talked down to by a 26 year old supervisor.
“Until major changes are made, I will look for another charter network… ”
Does NOT Recommend — Neutral Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 18:
1 * STAR (out of 5)
“Bad Work Environment”
CON’s:
“Working longer school years, longer school days (7 AM – 5 PM is mandated… and that includes a flexible prep time… some days you have all of your prep, other days you have none), with less pay.
“Couple this with no tenure, no unionized safety, no days off.
— There are no substitute teachers; if a teacher is absent, you lose your prep time to cover a class.
— And there is no compensation (of time or money) for this. As a result, the average worker sticks around till 8 PM. 7 AM-8 PM = a schedule that is not conducive to most people’s lifestyles.
— Clubs are practically mandated for certain teachers. No choice in this privatized industry.
“This job is not good for anybody who wants to do anything outside of Success. This includes having a family.”
ADVICE to Management:
“Consider changing your mentality towards teachers. Yes, students come first, but so do our personal lives. Make it more family friendly, and maybe there will be less of a teacher turnover in future years.”
Does NOT Recommend — Neutral Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CURRENT SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 19:
2 ** STARS (out of 5)
“Great Company…if you prefer ambiguity and lack of work/life balance ”
CON’s:
“Few standard operating procedures
— Unclear organizational structure
— Poor work/life balance
— Zero opportunities for mentorship and coaching due to youthful management, which leads to
— Young managerial staff with limited experience
ADVICE to Management:
“Stop reinventing the wheel.
— Develop basic policies and procedures.
— Hire competent, experienced staff.”
Does NOT Recommend — Negative Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 20:
2 ** STARS (out of 5)
“Good schools, terrible work environment (unless you are a teacher). ”
CON’s:
“Toxic work environment
— culture of fear
— you could lost your job at anytime, work harder.
Does NOT Recommend — Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 21:
2 ** STARS (out of 5)
“Mission driven, but a cult of personality ”
CON’s:
“High turnover,
— low employee satisfaction,
— incredibly top-down,
— poor upper and middle management,
— over-promotion,
— young workforce that exudes professional immaturity,
— heavy test prep that no one speaks of outside of the organization,
— layers of mismanagement and heavily politicized environment,
— doesn’t care about teacher turnover.
“Teachers are not trusted to do their jobs,
— staff on all levels are micromanaged,
— scaling and expanding too quickly without an adequate strategy or plan in place.
“The CEO, while an incredibly dynamic and intelligent woman, is too heavily involved with the day-to-day instead of focusing on higher level strategy and management of the organization. The organization runs on a cult of personality that revolves around pleasing her, which makes me skeptical that they can truly scale this model of education.”
ADVICE to Management:
“Change your policies towards teachers:
— Try to retain them,
— give more flexible time-off/sick day policies,
— place more trust in their abilities and truly develop them.
— Improve internal communication skills,
— treat employees like they are human,
— stop micromanaging and empower employees to do their jobs well.
“When you are leader and you constantly complain about the incompetencies beneath you – well, the apple never falls far from the tree. The culture starts at the top.”
Does NOT Recommend — Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 22:
2 ** STARS (out of 5)
“Great benefits and salary, good mission, poor execution ”
CON’s:
“Not a lot of autonomy;
— conflicting feedback and management styles;
— too many managers;
— poor work/life balance;
— poor employee culture (encouraged to backbite and compete rather than collaborate)
ADVICE to Management:
“Streamline management of lower level employees:
— teachers do not need and suffer under 4 different managers, particularly when they have varying styles of management and conflicting advice;
— too frequent observations actually contributes more to stress than to accountability.”
Does NOT Recommend — Neutral Outlook – Approves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CURRENT SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 1:
2 ** STARS (out of 5)
“Very Low Morale.”
CON’s:
“Depressing environment.
— Unreasonable workload.
— Teachers have low morale and are stressed.
— No work/life balance.
— Uncertain how much school cares about kids (it’s more about the numbers).
ADVICE to Management:
“The turnover rate is high.
“There are people who want to quit, but can’t because they
— 1) care about the kids,
— 2) need the money,
— 3) signed a 2 year commitment contract,
or
— 4) can’t get a day off to go on another interview.
“Management should be worried about the long-term viability of this organization.
— No one can work at this pace for 10 years.
“Management should invest in retaining their employees instead of hiring new ones constantly.
— Intellectual capital cannot be replicated.
— The hours are terrible. 6:30 am- 7pm stresses everyone out, including the kids.
— One has to wake up four or five am depending on commute and try to get to sleep early for the next day.
“However, the work never ends so there is never enough time to get everything done. You never feel as if you’re doing your job well enough. Ever.”
Does NOT Recommend — Negative Outlook – No Opinion of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER (& LEAD TEACHER) NO. 23:
2 ** STARS (out of 5)
“Well-funded, high expectations, don’t value their employees ”
CON’s:
“I felt completely taken advantage of as a teacher.
— Way overworked (even relative to a prior career that was extremely demanding),
— felt very little respect from network.
— Didn’t care about my work-life balance, personal health, emotional well-being.
— Was assigned way more tasks than what I believe a teacher should be asked to do (which resulted in lower quality work in the classroom).
— Extremely micromanaged, which was forced upon me in my work, and forced upon students as well.
— Little creativity encouraged in learning.”
ADVICE to Management:
“It’s been noted that the network doesn’t care about employee turn over–but this school turned me off from teaching.
— Literally worked me until I was sick.
— Actually care about your employees well-being and sanity–work smarter, not harder. — Allow kids to be kids, and let the teachers teach.
Does NOT Recommend — Neutral Outlook – Disapproves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CURRENT SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER NO. 24:
2 ** STARS (out of 5)
“The Reality is Nothing Like the Image ”
CON’s:
“Employee happiness is on the bottom of the priority list.
— The model seems to be based on bringing in young, idealistic men and women ready to put up with anything and asking them to work around the clock and devote their lives to the job.
— Few last longer than a year, which weakens the culture…some people don’t bother learning colleagues’ names since turnover is so high.
“Vast majority of senior staff are not good managers.
— Just so many terrible management practices that make no sense.
— Management seems to have no respect for employees.
— We are kept in the dark about major issues affecting us,
— management does not solicit employee opinions,
— huge discrepancies in salary between the top tier and the rest.
“Huge focus on testing and test scores.
— The image of multi-disciplinary ‘whole-child’ curriculum just isn’t true in Grades 3 and up, when the students spend months on end preparing for the state tests.”
ADVICE to Management:
“Employee happiness might not seem like a pressing problem, but a model based on constant turnover undermines the organization.
— Some respect toward the employees goes a long way (and I don’t mean casual Friday or free snacks).
Does NOT Recommend — Approves of CEO
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Noelle Green
September 7, 2014 at 4:53 pm
Wow! Either the New York Times reporter is very very lazy to ignore all this, or he read the Glassdoor reviews and just doesn’t care.
Reply
————————————————————
Jack
September 7, 2014 at 5:53 pm
“Either the New York Times reporter is very very lazy to ignore all this, or he read the Glassdoor reviews and just doesn’t care.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The latter… In journalism, it’s called the “check it, then lose it,” approach to writing an article.
… as in “check it” to see if a certain human source or data / evidence supports or contradicts the thesis or pre-determined bias you hold… then “lose it” or leave it out of your piece if it contradicts the message you’ve already decided to convey with the article.
Here’s something or rather someone that the writer left out of his piece.
I don’t have time to find the links, but back in fall 2011, I distinctly recall a 20-something Success Academy teacher—recently promoted to assistant principal—who was trotted out as a “show pony” of sorts in multiple venues. These included:
— NBC’s teacher-bashing, pro-privatization EDUCATION NATION week of specials;
— Steve Brill’s book CLASS WARFARE,
and
— the pro-charter propaganda doc THE LOTTERY.
Her name was/is Jessica Reid. Ms. Reid was Eva’s (and others’) prototype of the selfless, young go-getter charter teacher who needed no union to protect her—and she was contrasted with those lazy, half-assed, unionized veteran teachers. My recollection is that this thin blonde beauty came off a little stiff and unconvincing—methought the lady doth protested too much—but, like Campbell Brown, attractive and telegenic for the purposes of corporate reformers.
Well, Ms. Reid’s involvement in pro-charter, anti-union propaganda kind of blew up in the corporate reformers’ faces when Ms. Reid announced that she was quitting SUCCESS ACADEMY, claiming that working for Eva was ruining her marriage, and driving her to a nervous breakdown.
Woops! Maybe she needed a union more than she thought.
I have to go teach in the morning, so I don’t have time to dig up the links. I think she ended up teaching in the NYC’s traditional and unionized public schools, where she became—horror of horrors!!!—a teachers’ union member… but I’m not sure.
UPDATE:
My memory served me well… Yes, Ms. Reid DID go to work for the traditional public schools. Here’s an excerpt from an article in THE NATION:
http://www.thenation.com/article/162695/can-teachers-alone-overcome-poverty-steven-brill-thinks-so#
— – – – – – – – – –
“One of (Steve Brill’s) CLASS WARFARE’s stars, a charter school assistant principal named Jessica Reid, unexpectedly quits her job at Eva Moskowitz’s Harlem Success Academy in the middle of the school year; the charter chain’s rigorous demands pushed the 28-year-old Reid, a dedicated and charismatic educator, to the brink of a nervous breakdown and divorce.
“ ‘This wasn’t a sustainable life, in terms of my health and my marriage,’ she tells Brill, who concludes that he agrees (at least in part) with education historian and charter school critic Diane Ravitch. You can’t staff a national public school system of 3.2 million teachers, Ravitch tells Brill, with Ivy Leaguers willing to run themselves ragged for two years.
“Most of these folks won’t MOVE ON TO JOBS AT THE TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AS THE UNCOMMONLY COMMITTED JESSICA REID DID, but will simply leave the classroom altogether and head to politics, business or law, where they’ll be paid more to do prestigious work, often with shorter, less pressure-filled hours.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Eva’s loss was the public schools’—and their students’—gain.
I interviewed with the NY T reporter as did other teachers and parents and he DID ignore us all. He was fully aware of the truth. I gave him 8 years worth of info as I have been co-located with HSA1. I had also given him the Glass Door link thanks to Jack’s original link to it. After I read Bergner’s article, I wrote to him and his editors and no one has gotten back to me. Earlier in this comment thread, I posted a link to an article that a great ed blogger put together as an additional rebuttal detailing what that reporter left out via facts and with an interview from me. Also in that article is the email that I sent to Bergner and his editors. My school was the center of controversy earlier this year and its important that the truth gets out for most in NYC really did not know what was going on. $$$ talks and my special needs school almost got the boot because of Moskowitz.
My children have attended District 3 G&T and Gen Ed schools and now Success Academy. I’ve lived the difference in the schools as a parent, Class Parent and a PTA Board Member. My children have lived the difference as a student and community member. I’ve seen the significant improvement in critical thinking, vocabulary and love of learning my children have shown since attending Success Academy. My children also now have an understanding of what it means to be respected by the adults they are entrusted to each day at school. At their traditional school, it was acceptable to put them in front of a TV for bad weather days or when a teacher was out sick. Hours of time wasted watching Arnold in 2nd grade. Since the Principal at our traditional school thought it was too unsafe to bring a substitute in from DOE reserve of teachers, instead they would divide the kids up into different classrooms. One of my children was put into a dual language classroom two grades above her for a whole week. It was also acceptable for parents to spend countless hours fundraising so that the school could have toilet paper and printer paper. You may not like Success Academy but your dislike is not about the school. It is about yourself and your inability to reform our educational system so that every child can have a quality education. Eva has proven it can be done. There is a lot to be learned by her work but instead of looking to see what parts of her work can be utilized in the traditional public schools, you sit behind your laptop spewing hate. Maybe you should attend Success Academy to learn about ACTION values. Then, possibly, you’ll actually produce something productive that will help all kids.
“At their traditional school, it was acceptable to put them in front of a TV for bad weather days or when a teacher was out sick. Hours of time wasted watching Arnold in 2nd grade. Since the Principal at our traditional school thought it was too unsafe to bring a substitute in from DOE reserve of teachers, instead they would divide the kids up into different classrooms.”
That’s an example of the incompetence of principal, and perhaps that of her/his superiors.
Also, it may have nothing to do with bringing in a sub who was “unsafe”, as it might be just trying to save a buck because the school’s budget being slashed to the bone—a systematic starving of public schools executed by allies of Eva and the the charter world.
There are highly experienced ATR subs in New York City… highly skilled with decades of experience.
“It was also acceptable for parents to spend countless hours fundraising so that the school could have toilet paper and printer paper. You may not like Success Academy but your dislike is not about the school. It is about yourself and your inability to reform our educational system so that every child can have a quality education. Eva has proven it can be done.”
Eva has proven nothing except that she has figured out a way to get rich off school privatization. She makes $500,000 a year, and she just spent $31 million dollars for swank new offices on Wall Street.
And yeah, it is disgusting that the traditional public schools have to have fundraisers for toilet paper.
Why is that?
The game has been rigged against the traditional public schools. The traditional public schools have been systematically starved of funding and resources, and that has led to struggles and academic problems.
Those same people who caused these problems with the initial starvation are now using those problems—that they initially caused—as a rationale for ending public education, and privatizing it, and turning over to private operators that are not accountable to the citizen-taxpayers, not transparent to them, and who don’t educate all citizems.
Read this article by Mark Naison:
http://bknation.org/2014/01/charter-school-growth-bloomberg-style-creates-dilemma-de-blasio-administration-special-report-bk-nation/
——————————–
In today’s New York Post, an article appeared claiming that charter-school applications in New York City were 56 percent ahead of what they were at this time last year…putting pressure on the de Blasio administration to re-evaluate its efforts to slow charter expansion.
Those numbers are REAL. They reflect the desperation of inner-city and working-class parents who hope to find high-performing, safe schools for their children and see charters as the best hope for that.
However, they are making that judgment, based on what they observe in their own neighborhoods — not because of the inherent superiority of charter schools — but because the Bloomberg Administration rigged the game by giving huge preference to charter schools — both substantively and symbolically — and by using charters not as a strategy to improve public education in the city, but as a wedge to privatize it and to smash the influence of the city’s teachers union.
The challenge of the de Blasio Administration is see what happens when the competition is even, and when public schools are given the resources, encouragement and support that charters were given in the Bloomberg years. When and if that happens, the demand for charters is likely to decrease as parents see public schools in their neighborhood improve dramatically and innovative new public schools open in their neighborhoods.
Under the Bloomberg Administration — aided and abetted by police systems of the state and federal departments of education — charter schools were consciously selected over public schools as the preferred alternative when low-performing public schools were closed. This preference was manifested in several important ways:
• Charters were given facilities in public schools rent-free.
• In schools where they were co-located with public schools, the charters were given preferential access to auditoriums, gymnasiums, laboratories, and often put in the most desirable locations in the buildings.
• Although charters selected their students by lottery, they were allowed to weed out students who had disciplinary problems, or who performed poorly on standardized tests. As a result, according to Ben Chapman of the Daily News, only six percent of charter students are ELL students and nine percent are special-needs students…far lower than the city average for public schools.
• When you count space, charters received more city funding than public schools, and when you add to that private contributions that they solicited, charters spent significantly more per student than public schools.
• Community organizations and universities willing to start new schools were encouraged by the NYC Department of Education to start charter schools rather than public schools.
These preferences had an absolutely devastating effect on inner city public schools, which were in the same neighborhood as the charters. In the case of schools who had charter co-location, it led to humiliating exclusion from school facilities that they once had access to, leaving their students starved of essential resources. But in the case of all inner-city public schools, it led to a drain of high- performing students, whose parents put them in charters, and an influx of ELL students, special-needs students and students pushed out of charters for disciplinary problems–taxing those schools’ resources and making it much more difficult for them to perform well on standardized tests. The school-closing policies of the Bloomberg Administration added to the stress on those already hard-pressed schools, forcing their staffs to work under the threat of closure and of exile to the infamous “rubber room” for teachers.
What occurred was a “tale of two school systems” within inner-city neighborhoods — one favored, given preferential access to scare resources…hailed as the “savior” of inner-city youth…the others demonized, stigmatized, deprived of resources, threatened with closure and deluged with students that charter schools did not want.
If you were a parent, which school would you want to send your child to?
But what happens when the game is no longer rigged? When charter schools have to pay rent? When they can’t push out ELL and special-needs students? When facilities in co-located schools are fairly distributed? When schools are no longer given letter grades and threatened with closing, but are given added resources when they serve students with greater needs? When universities and community organizations are encouraged to start innovative public schools…not just create charters?
If all those things happen — and I expect that some of them will during the next few years of a de Blasio/Farina Department of Education — then public schools in the inner city will gradually improve…charters in those neighborhoods will become less selective…and students, on the whole, will have enhanced choice and opportunity because there will be more good schools in the city.
The current hunger to enroll students in charter schools is understandable, given the policies pursued by the Bloomberg Administration, but those policies, which undermined public education, did not enhance opportunity for all students, and pitted parent against parent and school against school in a competition for scarce resources.
The de Blasio policy of restoring public schools to public favor is a sound one, and should be pursued carefully, humanely, and with respect for the hunger of parents and students of New York City for outstanding educational options.
Great response Jack. This is the sad reality.
Mindy
I am truly sorry you had a bad experience with your children’s TPS. What you gave shared was wrong and should have been reported. However not all schools are like that and I take offense to your comment about why we are “hating” on SA. Go back to my earlier comments and you will see a link to an article that details my experience dealing with SA as a co-location. I assure you, you will learn something. I am an educational activist directly resulting from the hell my school was put through.
Now I am truly glad your kids are doing well and I wish them the best. However all too often, I see sad faces with fingers being snapped at them, I’ve seen them ridiculed and demeaned in front of others, and I’ve seen them being made to stifle their feelings and being yelled at if they didn’t stop crying. My position comes from 8 years of dealing with SA, and despite what you already believe, there is so much you don’t know. I’m about all children, not Moskowitz.
If you read the NYT Magazine piece, Bergner
characterizes that public school teachers as being
just jealous of Success Academy’s academic
achievement, and they have nothing substantive
to say to criticize the Success Academy network.
Therefore, according to Bergner, the envious
and bitter public school teachers’ only
response is to compare Success Academy
co-location and expansion-after-co-location
to “mestasizing” cancer. Bergner chose not to include any of
the actual details and substance of the public school
teachers’ critiques of Success Academy—that those
same teachers now claim that they shared with
Bergner, but again, that Bergner chose to leave out.
Daniel Katz interviewed Mindy Rosier, one of the teachers
with whom Bergner spoke, and Rosier details the
actual information and opinions that she
shared with Bergner, yet Bergner chose to ignore
in the final article.
http://morecaucusnyc.org/2014/09/12/new-york-times-ignored-teacher-input-on-eva-moskowitz/
Here’s an excerpt:
—————————————-
Daniel Katz: Ms. Mindy Rosier was kind enough to answer my questions about what she thinks people in NYC need to know about the consequences of charter school co-locations awarded to Success Academy. Much of this was what she told Mr. Bergner in a 45 minute long conversation whose content never made it to the New York Times Magazine:
DANIEL KATZ: Can you explain the school where you work? Who are your students and what is the mission of your school?
MINDY ROSIER: My school is PS811 at PS149. We are an additional site to the Mickey Mantle School family and we are also a part of District 75. My school site serves over 100 children with autism, learning disabilities, emotional and psychiatric disorders in a low income area in Harlem. Harlem Gems also have some rooms in our building. We all get along really well, with the exception of Success Academy.
The following is our mission statement:
“The core values of P811M are articulated and expressed by a family of dedicated professionals committed to educating the whole child with integrity, compassion and respect. Our collective community effectively implements instructional practices geared to the individualized achievement of students’ social, emotional and academic goals. Each child’s individual assessment data informs this instruction. It is our goal to lead students towards maximum independence. With this independence, disabilities are turned into abilities.”
DANIEL KATZ: How did the co-location with Success Academy happen? Were there discussions with parents and faculty/staff? Do you know how it was decided to co-locate at your school?
MINDY ROSIER: Our site opened the same time as Success Academy began. It is my understanding that at that time, space for all was agreed upon. They had a certain amount of classes on one floor in one side of the building. I was hired at that school during the same time, so I am unaware of any other previous discussions with faculty/staff and parents. I don’t think anyone had a problem with that co-location then, but then again we had no idea what was to come.
DANIEL KATZ: How did the co-location process work? Did you have any input into how the building would be divided between your school and Success Academy?
MINDY ROSIER: At first, everything was fine. Then, over the next several years, they have requested more and more space from us. Up until last year, I did not know what the process was. I know our teachers did not have a say in this, and I really don’t know what the involvement of my admins were. I do know that just for one year, our former Chapter Leader (who now works for the UFT division for District 75 schools) was able to prevent more expansion on her part.
Overall, we lost two floors that included classrooms, our library, our music room, our art room, our science room, and as a matter of making up one classroom, we lost our technology room as well. P.S.149 was so nice and offered us some available rooms at that time. Since, Success Academy has also expanded on their side and they lost an entire floor. So by last year, we had NO free space and P.S.149 was and is crunched for space as well.
DANIEL KATZ: Do the schools ever share any parts of the facilities? If yes, how does that work out most of the time? If not, do you know why?
MINDY ROSIER: We are NOT allowed on their floors. However, they always go through our hallways. Because of overcrowding and for safety reasons, they were told not to walk through a certain hallway during our dismissal times. My understanding was that they were not too happy about it and I have observed this still happening a couple of times over the years. All schools share the auditorium. In order to reserve time, coordination needs to be done. When Success Academy is using the auditorium, it is usually closed off to all others.
Since our building is of a decent size, many of us cut through the back of the auditorium to the other exit to get to the P.S 149 side. (We have 3 classes on their second floor as well as a speech room and a resolution room.)
So many times, when SA puts on a show or an event, it is very loud! There are two sets of doors that lead to the auditorium from our hallway. We have several rooms including classrooms close by. They have no problem keeping those doors open, disturbing our classrooms and other rooms. My office happens to be near there as well. So many times I have gotten up to close those two sets of doors. Sometimes I got looks doing so, but I didn’t care. We were all being disturbed. Noise levels do not have to be that loud. Even with the two doors shut, you still can here them. We just make do, like every other time. We do share the lunch room.
In the mornings, SA has their breakfast first and then we do. There is another lunchroom on the P.S.149 side and also because of scheduling, their lunch begins around 10:40. On our side it is 11:30. Whether or not lunch staff starts on time, we have to be out of there just shy of 12. Our standardized students then have recess for a half hour, and then our alternative students have the next half hour.
On Wednesdays, Success Academy has early dismissal. They are supposed to come out at 12:30. They exit through our playground. For the most part, they are already lined up to leave as we are heading back in from recess. There have been some occasions where at least one of their classes had come out really early. It was about 12:15 and my assigned class were in the middle of a kickball game. I yelled out several times to that teacher to please hold off, it is still our time. I know I was loud (that’s the Brooklyn in me) so I am pretty confident she heard me but chose to ignore me.
My students LOVE recess and when they saw they had to end the game early they got upset very quickly and behaviors escalated. Me and one other para(professional) were trying our best to calm them down. There was another para who had gone inside earlier with another student because of a separate issue. When I saw that para come out, I yelled to him to get help which he did. This was a 4th grade class of about 12 who are all emotionally disturbed and learning disabled. It was such a difficult situation. Some students had to be separated because their anger looked like it was going to lead to some fights.
My lunch was next period, and I immediately informed my Assistant Principal. In front of me, she called their principal. I also had to write up several incident reports.
Now back to our lunchroom….our lunchroom is also our gym. Right after breakfast, it is cleaned up and the tables are folded and pushed to the sides. We have access to this space all mornings. Now the afternoon is a different story. SA uses the the lunchroom in the afternoons. If P.S.149’s gym is available, they have been nice enough to let us share it. Otherwise adapted phys ed is done in the classrooms. Our gym teacher is wonderful and he has been great adapting to this situation.
However, these are kids, kids with special needs, and they need to run a bit.
DANIEL KATZ: What changes have you seen in your work and your students’ educations since co-locating with Success Academy? What do you think accounts for that?
MINDY ROSIER: We have done our best over the years to make sure that our students’ education has not been compromised in any way.
However, our students as well as those in P.S.149 have picked up on the fact that we are all treated differently from them by them. Their teachers sometimes very obviously, have always looked down at our students even us teachers. I have tried to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are new teachers and they may just not understand what our students are going through.
However, that is no excuse to give us looks or ignore us for simply saying “good morning.” There have also been some times where as I was passing, some of the kids have said “hi” to me. I love all children and without even realizing it I always acknowledge their presence even if it just a smile. I remember one time in particular those kids seemed so happy that I made their eye gaze, so I quickly said “hi” to them and slowly kept on walking by.
A few of them said “hi” back and proudly told me how old they were. I would have loved to engage with them but they are not our students. Their teacher snapped at them to be quiet and to stand correctly on line. I felt so bad and I did look back. I didn’t want anyone in trouble for me simply saying “hi.”
DANIEL KATZ: Could you explain any changes to the environment/culture/feeling of the building during that time? What do you think accounts for that?
MINDY ROSIER: There is definitely and us vs. them feeling in the air. I’ve been told that they have shiny clean floors, new doors, fancy bathrooms, etc.
Meanwhile, we have teachers who have bought mops and even a vacuum cleaner to clean their rooms for they feel what is done is not efficient enough. Near our entrance, we have an adult bathroom. It is for staff and our parents. Success Academy parents as well have used it. For many months that bathroom went out of order. Honestly, I am not even sure it is fixed yet, but after all this time, I really hope so. So we would have to either use the closet of a bathroom in the staff lunch area or use one of the kids’ bathroom when it is not in use.
You and I know that had that been an SA bathroom, it would have been fixed by the next day.
SA also throws out tons of new or practically new materials often. At first, some of their teachers would sneak us some materials thinking we could benefit from it. They stopped out of fear. With all the great stuff that they have thrown out, they got angry when they found out that teachers from P.S.149 and I believe some of our teachers too would go through the piles and take what we could use.
Well, now they only throw out their garbage shortly before pick up so that no one could get at it. Nice, right?
We have all seen them get Fresh Direct deliveries. Our kids too. Our students have a general feeling that SA students are special based on how they walk around and how they are personally treated either by looks or sometimes comments. Our students may be special needs, but they understand to a point that feeling of us vs. them. We do not at all refer to things that way at all.
It truly is sad. We are a school with teachers, other staff, and students. We are all supposed to be here for a reason. It is beyond me that this has been such a battle.
This past year teachers and other faculty were very angry. Once I heard about SA’s plan to take over last September, that’s when I started to get involved. Enough was enough. In October, I attended a hearing in my school building, I went to that Panel for Education Policy (PEP) in Brooklyn a week later, and subsequent to that, I have been a part of rallies and press conferences, etc. as I have detailed in my email. All of what happened at my school has led to my educational activism. I have read so much over the years.
The more and more I read, the angrier I got. The Alliance For Quality Education has done so much for our school in order to save it and for that I am very thankfully to them and I still maintain a very good relationship with them. I was introduced to MORE(Movement of Rank and File Educators) in late April, and I now sit on its Steering Committee, committed to do right by our teachers and students. Instead of just being angry as I have been for so long, I finally did something about it by being proactive. I do have to say, since my activism began, I have made tons of new like-minded friend and I am grateful of that too.
DANIEL KATZ: Why do you think Eva Moskowitz and Mayor Bloomberg agreed to further expansion of Success Academy in your building? What would you say to them about that if you could?
MINDY ROSIER: Oh, boy! I believe they are friends and that they run in same circles. They did not care, never did.
When we went to that PEP in October, about putting through those charter locations, it was like nothing I have ever seen before. It was my first one. The room was packed with teachers from so many different schools. There were parents, students, and various community leaders including Letitia James and Noah Gotbaum. People were ANGRY. So many plead their case for two minutes at the mic, some with heart wrenching stories, and all the while the panel was very busy playing on their phones, looking bored and disinterested. It was disgusting.
You could hear so many people yelling, “Get off your phones!” I did not speak at this PEP ,but a dear coworker did. I hadn’t found my voice just yet at that time. She tried to give an impassioned speech and when they did not even look at her, she called them out on it and was STILL ignored. It sure seemed to us that the fix was in.
Money and power talks and all else suffers.
How could you be so heartless? How can you say you are for all children when you have thought nothing about our community’s most vulnerable children, just willing to toss them aside like trash? A population that you refuse to educate and have sent as cast-offs our way?
Knowing our building did NOT have any free space, why did you purposely choose to expand here? Why were parents lied to? Why did you perpetuate lies in the media and to the general public?
These are just some of the questions I would ask her (Eva Moskowitz) based solely on what she tried to do to my school. Trust me, there are so many more that we all have been asking her for a long time.
On the Families 4 Excellent Schools’ page on Facebook, I have gone back and forth with many, and most of those were parents. They had no clue as to what the truth was. So instead of them doing their homework, it was easier to call me a liar, a racist, clueless myself, etc., etc. I didn’t go on there to bash Success Academy. I went on there to inform them of the truth that was completely hidden to them and the general public.
After a while, I just had to stop. It was like beating my head against the wall. Moskowitz seems to be this cult-like figure to parents and they adore her. I have even heard her be called a savior!
As for Bloomberg, I used to like him, but that obviously changed. Apparently, he came to our building several times to visit SA but never us. We never said “boo.” However when Farina came to our school for a quick walk through to see our space situation during this whole debacle, it became front page news in the NY Daily News with Farina’s big picture and bold letters SNUBBED.
Something to that affect, I don’t remember exactly. SA was pissed that even though she had a specific purpose for her visit to us, she did not go to visit them. She “snubbed” them and that made the front page!
Honestly, I think I would simply ask him, “Why did you put money, politics, and power over the welfare of our beautiful special needs children?”
DANIEL KATZ: What do you think about the presentation of your concerns in the New York Times article that ran in the September 7th magazine? Is there anything you think the reporter ought to explain to you and your fellow teachers?
MINDY ROSIER: I was beyond angry. I have no problem taking time out to talk about concerns I have, and on those things that I am passionate. I spent a considerable amount giving very specific facts, and they were all ignored. Other teachers were ignored. Parents were ignored. We all gave verifiable facts, but that did not matter.
I personally feel that a good reporter should report both sides of the story. Way too many reporters and various mass media outlets have failed us, our school. our students, their parents, and the general public.
I want to know why he blatantly ignored all of us and deceived the general public? Important information that I feel everyone should know, instead of blindly praising a woman with obvious deceitful tendencies simply because they have higher scores. There is a reason for that and the public needs to know the actual truth.
Isn’t writing about and printing the truth Reporting 101? We ALL deserve a public apology with answers to the questions I have mentioned.
We need more reporters like Juan Gonzalez who is not afraid to tell the truth. He has posted several articles on SA, even one that had a focus on our school. He is one out of how many? AND because of all the faulty and biased information out there, when he does write something, he does not get any respect and he has been bashed. “How do you say such things about Moskowitz and her schools?”
I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!
###
Ms. Rosier has also written to the New York Times and Daniel Bergner to express her surprise that none of her conversation made it into the article, and to remind Mr. Bergner what she had said to him.
As of today, the letter has not appeared in the Times, but Ms. Rosier provides the text of it here.
This article was published at
http://danielskatz.net/
Thank you Jack for sharing my interview. I’m tired of being silenced and people not knowing the truth. We need more people to keep coming forward. Enough is enough!!!
And here’s yet ANOTHER article—this one by Leonie Haimson—which also features people who spoke to Bergner, but whose views were totally omitted from Bergner’s final NY TIMES Magazine piece:
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2014/09/egregious-distortions-in-nyt-article-on.html
—————————————-
Monday, September 8, 2014
Egregious distortions in NYT article
on Success Charters,
say parents, teachers & journalist
This Sunday’s NY Times featured an outrageously one-sided article on Success charters. It is not the first. One remembers the Steve Brill article from 2010 on Harlem Success Academy which was so similar in tone that I had to keep checking to see that this was not the exact same piece.
The Brill article was replete with many factual errors – claiming that the high-performing students at Success charters were exactly like those as the public schools with which it shared space, even though that was a clear falsehood that any reporter or editor could have checked if they had bothered to look at the data. This time, the reporter Daniel Bergner admitted that the type of students enrolled may be different, writing in an offhand manner:
—————————————————
“On the topic of scores, the U.F.T. and Ravitch insist that Moskowitz’s numbers don’t hold up under scrutiny. Success Academy (like all charters), they say, possesses a demographic advantage over regular public schools, by serving somewhat fewer students with special needs, by teaching fewer students from the city’s most severely dysfunctional families and by using suspensions to push out underperforming students (an accusation that Success Academy vehemently denies). …. But even taking these differences into account probably doesn’t come close to explaining away Success Academy’s results.”
—————————————————
Though he mentions that critics cite demographic differences, he doesn’t bother to report the data himself and discounts their impact. He completely brushes off the higher suspension rates, by saying that Success denies it, but these are well-documented and a Legal Aid attorney argues their practice is illegal. Even the SUNY charter institute, a creature of the charter lobby, has criticized Success Academy suspensions in documents available online – none of which the reporter mentions, because it is only “critics” who claim their reality.
Bergner only quotes two critics: UFT head Michael Mulgrew (who he depicts as self-interested) and Diane Ravitch, though he left out most of what she said. At the Huffington Post, Diane Ravitch points out that she told him the following – all left out of his article:
—————————————————
“The only Success Academy school that has fully grown to grades 3-8 tested 116 3rd graders but only 32 8th graders. Three other Success Academy schools have grown to 6th grade. One tested 121 3rd graders but only 55 6th graders, another 106 3rd graders but only 68 6th graders, and the last 83 3rd graders but only 54 6th graders. Why the shrinking student body? When students left the school, they were not replaced by other incoming students. When the eighth grade students who scored well on the state test took the admissions test for the specialized high schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, not one of them passed the test.
“I also told Bergner that Success Academy charters have among the highest rates of teacher turnover every year, which would not happen if teachers enjoyed the work. Helen Zelon wrote in ‘City Limits’:
” ‘In Harlem Success Academies 1-4, the only schools for which the state posted turnover data, more than half of all teachers left the schools ahead of the 2013-14 school year.’
” ‘In one school, three out of four teachers departed.’
“I also told Bergner about a website called Glass Door, where many former teachers at SA charters expressed their candid views about an ‘oppressive’ work climate at the school. As more of these negative reviews were posted, a new crop of favorable reviews were added, echoing the chain’s happy talk but not shedding light on why teachers don’t last long there. … He did not think it mattered that none of her successful eighth grade students was able to pass the test for the specialized high schools, and he didn’t mention it in the article. Nor was he interested in teacher turnover or anything else that might reflect negatively on SA charters. “
—————————————————
Not only did the reporter ignore all this negative evidence, he even misquoted her, which Diane had to correct when the editor called her to check:
—————————————————
“For example, he quoted me defending ‘large government-run institutions,’ when what I said was ‘public schools.’ He was using SA’s framing of my views.”
—————————————————
This phraseology “large government run institutions” is a dead giveaway of the reporter’s strong biases: it not just the charter lobby’s framing, it comes right of conservative talking points. Public schools are described this way by Rick Santorum and the like, rhetoric designed to convince people to oppose them.
Other signs of the purposeful distortions and omissions in this article are when Bergner claims that de Blasio “inexplicably” opposed the expansion of Harlem Success 1 at PS 149.
Actually, the explanation de Blasio provided was clear – that the charter’s expansion would necessitate the displacement of 20 percent of the severely disabled students at the Mickey Mantle school in the same building. Clearly Bergner knew this as he interviewed Mindy Rosier and other teachers at this school; as Rosier explains in a comment to the article:
—————————————————
“I did not bash Moskowitz, but what I did tell him as a teacher in a co-located school with her, all the things that has happened in the last 8 years. I told him story after story. All verifiable but unfortunately hidden from the general public. He made points about deBlasio denying her space though he did not truthfully tell you all why. Moskowitz wanted to expand in a building with no free space. Her expansion would have kicked out a special needs school. Over 100 special needs students from the Harlem community and surrounding areas. deBlasio was trying to save that school and he said several times that he did NOT want those students displaced. …Those $6 million ads were basically supporting a special needs school to be kicked out of its own space for her expansion.“
—————————————————
Nor did Bergner quote a single public school parent. He repeats the canard that Moskowitz always proclaims, repeated without evidence by Steve Brill and other propagandists, that the opposition to Success expansion was driven entirely by the UFT – here’s his quote:
—————————————————
” … almost always the proposed arrival of a Success Academy has met with hostility: union members bused in by the U.F.T. to pack community meetings, people heckling and spitting at Moskowitz… ”
—————————————————
I have attended many public hearings but I have never seen anyone spit at Moskowitz; in fact she rarely shows up for them. And there is no need for the UFT to provide busing to “pack community meetings.” Anyone who talked to any public school parents or attended any co-location hearings or read the extensive public comments online at the DOE website would know that nothing provokes more fury among parents than the prospect of co-located schools, exiling their children from their classrooms, their art rooms, their science labs and gyms. Not to mention huge anger from former Success parents, whose children have been pushed out of her schools.
From Noah Gotbaum, parent leader in District 3 where many of Moskowitz’ charters are located:
—————————————————
“Bergner also had information from current and former Success parents about the winnowing and forcing out of low performing students. Also of Moskowitz’s “banning” of parents and suspension of students who in any way question the administration and a general disaffection by current parents. He just chose not to use it.
“A few weeks ago I spoke with him and suggested people for him to speak with including public school parent leaders – who have led the charge against the Success colocations. He told me that he needed to finish the piece and already had had “long interviews with 50 supporters and critics”. Seeing this piece it’s now worth asking who are those critics (besides Diane and Mulgrew) and why didn’t he include their voices or any of the info they provided?
“The Times should be skewered for this. But they won’t be.”
—————————————————
Nor did the reporter bother to investigate how overcrowded our schools already are. Instead he writes:
“The public schools — with the United Federation of Teachers spurring the fight — have protested that sharing space causes overcrowding, though in theory charters have moved in only where enough rooms were available.”
This is completely untrue. In fact, nearly half of the recent co-locations pushed through by Bloomberg, including Harlem Success academy co-location, would have put the school building above 100% capacity, according to the DOE formula – a formula, by the way, that most experts believe understates the actual level of overcrowding in our schools.
Below are comments from Gretchen Mergenthaler, a public school parent in Washington Heights:
—————————————————
“I am tired of the focus in the media on Eva and deBlasio and I am tired of Eva’s expensive advertising campaign.
“In my district, District 6, the CEC (parents elected by parents) passed a resolution saying that District 6 did not want more charters but wanted more support for our existing schools so they could expand, provide more enrichment, smaller class size and better teacher support. But Eva got what she wanted: a free building in our district. Our kids are in trailers while Eva gets a new building.
“The CEC was not consulted about the imposition of an SA in our district (no big surprise). The community was not consulted!! SA paid people to hand out applications to make it appear as if there were demand.
“I have not met one CEC president who has said that they want more charters. I was told by a CEC president that at the citywide CEC presidents meetings with Chancellor Fariña, no one has ever asked for more charters. NO ONE.
“The NYT should be covering the real story.”
—————————————————
The following is from Gail Robinson, an experienced editor formerly at Gotham Gazette, now a freelance reporter for InsideSchools and City Limits:
—————————————————
“This article would have been less flawed/irritating if it did not claim to be a discussion of the battle over NYC schools. What it really is a puffy profile of Eva.
“But it’s disconcerting that the reporter (if one can call him that) did not attempt to verify anything independently. Figures on attrition of staff and students are a few clicks away on the NYS education department site, as are statistics on number of English language earners and students with special needs in any school.
“The author did not seem to have visited many/any co-located schools or bothered to investigate the specific reasons Carmen Farina originally rejected the three proposed co-locations last school year. He also did not say that some other charter operators co-locate in a more cooperative spirit and that relations between co-located schools can be harmonious if the adults try to make it that way.
“Finally, the writer did not look at how much money Success Academy has. The recruiting efforts and many of the special features (technology, a special room for blocks at the Williamsburg school, a trip to Albany for all students, etc.) are beyond the budgets of many public schools, which do not get the kind of donations Success does. Parent, naturally, are delighted by those frills — and few care where the money comes from as long as their child benefits. That’s understandable. But that fact cannot be ignored in any kind of policy discussion. If regular district schools had the resources some charters do, what could those schools do?
“There are lots of bad writers and reporters out there but I wonder what is going on at the NYT when it seems to require less of its writers than I do of my high school journalism students.”
—————————————————
Thank you for this clear explanation.
Mindy
Any school that requires an application to it’s lottery is excluding the most high-needs students right off the bat. Those students whose parents are not involved in their educational decisions are precisely the students who are at highest risk.
This is quite easily remedied, by automatically entering all students into the lottery.
Indeed, the entire reason we have charters in NY is because they promised to focus on at-risk students, but a few amendments to the original charter law fixed it so they can instead dump those students into public schools at higher concentrations.