I get the impression, reading Peter Greene’s latest post, that he doesn’t think Eva Moskowitz deserves an apology from John Merrow or PBS.
He says she has created an empire of her own, and she can’t brook any criticism.
Success Academy works for some kids, but not for all kids. That is, if you think that the ultimate measure of a school is test scores, she has them. Public schools are supposed to work for all kids. Granted, there are magnet schools and special schools, but there are supposed to be public schools where no one is turned away, no one is counseled out.
Eva says that the little boy–age 5 or 6–was a very bad behavior problem. Peter–and many readers of this blog–think that he couldn’t handle the pressure.
Peter finds documentation for everything John Merrow said about attrition rates.
Moskowitz also demands a retraction for the reporting of a high attrition rate, claiming, “Our attrition rate is actually lower than the average for either district or charter schools.” This is an exceptionally ballsy claim. You can look at these charts from Democracy Builders, a pro-charter group in NYC, showing that for eighty-eight students starting in third grade, Success ends up with thirty-one in eighth grade. In 2014, the Daily News reported that the first graduating class at Harlem Success was just thirty-two of the original seventy-three– and despite their awesome test scores, none of them qualified on the entrance exam for the top high schools in the city.
Maybe those kids were just a bad fit for Eva’s academy.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Sexually inappropriate language and throwing chairs,” wasn’t that in there somewhere, or am I misremembering?
So why did she not provide services as any public school would. Is NYS exempting charters specifically from doing so. The Charter for which I work has a special ed teacher. If behavior is beyond a public school ability to handle, and this school is public after all, we evaluate and place in a special school. It costs the charter $40,000 a year. Could this be why Success does nothing but suspend. I suppose she remembers when CCNY accepted only top students (and may again but I don’t know) and was a public school.
Charters in NYS are not exempt from providing special ed services, but much easier and cheaper to push the high needs kids back into the public schools. It’s also likely that the charters are counting on the fact most parents will not have the wherewithal fight the uphill battle to get the required services. It’s a lot of work to advocate for your child, even for those parents with time and resources to do so.
Amen.
Because Eva and her ilk don’t even believe in the concept of “disability” or that there is a category known as “special ed,” or in IEP’s.
Or perhaps Eva does, but doesn’t deign to take those unfortunates on. According to one staffer, she responds to kids in hardship, including those based on disability with the following comment:
“SUCCESS ACADEMY is are not a Social Services agency.”
Eva Moskowitz is on the same page with Duncan. To both of them, there’s no such thing as “special ed.” In her opinion, that which the traditional school approach categorizes as “special ed,” is nothing more than a lack of “maturity” as a result of “mama” failing to her her job. Those whose fail to “mature” — or have the effects of poor parenting reversed — under Eva’s system are kicked out… err… “counseled out.”
This is from PAGE 5 of the 2010 NEW YORK MAGAZINE story on Eva and her schools:
http://nymag.com/news/features/65614/index4.html
————————————————-
“At Harlem Success, disability is a dirty word.
” ‘I’m not a big believer in special ed,’ (SUCCESS ACADEMY’s instructional leader) Fucaloro says. For many children who arrive with individualized education programs, or IEPs, he goes on, the real issues are ‘maturity and undoing what the parents allow the kids to do in the house—usually mama—and I reverse that right away.’
“When remediation falls short, according to sources in and around the network, families are counseled out. ‘Eva told us that “the school is not a social-service agency,” ‘ says the Harlem Success teacher. ‘That was an actual quote.’
“In one case, says a teacher at P.S. 241, a set of twins started kindergarten at the co-located HSA 4 last fall. One of them proved difficult and was placed on a part-time schedule, ‘so the mom took both of them out and put them in our school. She has since put the calm sister twin back in Harlem Success, but they wouldn’t take the boy back. We have the harder, troubled one; they have the easier one.’
“Such triage is business as usual, says the former network staffer, when the schools are vexed by behavioral problems: ‘They don’t provide the counseling these kids need.’ If students are deemed bad ‘fits’ and their parents refuse to move them, the staffer says, the administration ‘makes it a nightmare’ with repeated suspensions and midday summonses. After a 5-year-old was suspended for two days for allegedly running out of the building, the child’s mother says the school began calling her every day ‘saying he’s doing this, he’s doing that. Maybe they’re just trying to get rid of me and my child, but I’m not going to give them that satisfaction.’ ”
“At her school alone, the Harlem Success teacher says, at least half a dozen lower-grade children who were eligible for IEPs have been withdrawn this school year. If this account were to reflect a pattern, Moskowitz’s network would be effectively winnowing students before third grade, the year state testing begins.
” ‘The easiest and fastest way to improve your test scores,’ observes a DoE principal in Brooklyn, ‘is to get higher-performing students into your school.’ And to get the lower-performing students out.”
Everything about Ms. Moskowitz and Success Academies reeks of elitism and arrogance, from the use of the term “academy” instead of “school,” to the uniforms and canned curricula, to the sense of entitlement she gives off whenever anyone suggests that the state might reconsider sending so much taxpayer money her way.
But the clincher is the suggestion that Ms. Moskowitz suspects that “some kids” were just a “bad fit” for her precious “academy.”
No real educator would ever think of a child as a “bad fit” for their classroom or school. Ms. Moskowitz is not an educator. She’s a vulture capitalist enthralled with the idea of using her network of schools as a new profit center for her investors.
It’s Eva that is a “bad fit” for kids, education and New York City.
mrobsmsu:
Your last line—
TAGO!
😎
Educating Children and Exploiting Children just don’t mix — what a shock.
If Eva’s Magnate Schools are a such a bad fit for public school children, then maybe they’re a bad fit for public school dollars.
You nailed it. It’s time all charters start accepting all students. They need to hold expulsion hearings if they want to expel children.
They don’t really “expel” students — they never expelled the boy in the news story. They just suspend them over and over, or just make them feel so much “misery” that they prefer a failing, underfunded public school.
I noticed in her interview with John Merrow that Eva Moskowtitz said that the school select the replacement when a child leaves.
I thought there’s a lottery and drawing to get into the schools.
I don’t think she did say that. It’s very unclear how seats are filled once school begins. For example, if someone leaves after a week, is every attempt to contact the next person on the list made?
One thing that has been reported on NY1 — a student who won the lottery for a 2nd grade opening was tested and told she would have to repeat 1st grade if she wanted to come to the school. The child’s family turned down the spot. So little methods like that insure that every child allowed to join the 2nd grade is already at what Success Academy deems is performing at grade level. It helps keep the scores high in 3rd. And who is watching what standard they use to decide who gets to enter 2nd and who must repeat a year (thus are discouraged to take the spot)? No one.
As a research project, it would be very interesting to see how many of the students at the low-income Success Academy schools have repeated one or more grades and whether those students stick it out.
When she compares herself to public schools, does she use the elite public schools, which for better or worse, are more like her school, which if she does admit a variety of kids, cleanses the pool pretty stringently. She reminds me of Wendy Kopp, who once TFA was questioned got into a bunker mentality that promoted spin more than evidence, and treated anyone questioning her as seditious. There;s such a pattern of contempt and arrogance among these elitist reformers of anything remotely resembling common schools and democracy.
One reason I am so appalled by all this is that these reformers seem to care more about promoting themselves than what happens to kids in schools. If Eva Moskowitz really cared about the kids, she would be very honest about what she does — it could actually HELP all schools.
For example, SA seems to be believe children — especially at-risk children — frequently need to be held back. Success Academy can’t teach a good number of 2nd graders what they are supposed to know by the end of 2nd grade in a single year. But you never hear anything about how many students get held back in their system. Why not? Imagine if we had a real discussion of slowing down the curriculum for students instead of forcing 10% or 20% or whatever number of kids — who are almost always the at-risk kids — to “fail”. If Eva Moskowitz was really interested in reform she would be talking about THAT. And talking about how much the extra donations help fund her schools. Instead we are supposed to believe the myth that she can teach every at-risk child, turn them into high-performing scholars, and all on “less money” than public schools get. Guess who gets hurt by that? The at-risk kids whose parents can’t subsidize their education. Guess who LOVES that? The hedge funders and right wingers who love having Eva justify major cuts in education budgets so public schools can be underfunded. It keeps their taxes low. And THAT is what this fake reform seems to be all about. To promote the lie that we can keep taxes on the rich low and just cut money from those “wasteful” public school budgets since Eva Moskowitz has proven every child can be educated into scholars for less money.
If Eva cared about children, she wouldn’t have sent a private litany of alleged misbehaviors of a former student in an email to a news organization. Even if student records were not legally private, I cannot imagine ever doing that to a child, especially not for the selfish, political reasons she had.
Isn’t it illegal to release confidential information about this student ?
Meanwhile Success Academy’s lobbying arm, Families for Excellent Schools, just broadcast a new deceptive, misleading TV ad here in NYC. I would like Eva Moskowitz and Jeremiah Kittredge to apologize for maligning real NYC public schools, real NYC public school teachers, and the families who attend these schools.
PBS Newshour just announced that Eva complained about the Merrow interview but they stand by it. Judy Woodruff said her letter is posted on their website.
PBS ought to take the letter down or at least redact the details about the student (much as I would like to see a ginormous FERPA lawsuit brought against SA).
Sharon–I agree it is uncomfortable to read the letter because it appears to contain violations of the student’s FERPA rights. Under FERPA a school may not disclose personally identifiable information to a third party unless the student’s parent has provided written consent. But — In the letter Mr. Merrow is being accused of untruthful and unethical reporting. You would only know that by reading the letter. PBS has every right to respond. They stand by the report.
Eva’s letter need not have contained such copious and specific details. PBS and other purveyors of journalism will sometimes go to great lengths to protect their sources. Why are this one child and this one family not afforded similar protections of their privacy as demanded by FERPA?
Bruce Baker once wrote that when students enroll in charter schools, they check their constitutional rights at the door.
Sharon– you are missing the point. PBS did not violate confidentially —Eva did when she put sensitive behavior records in writing to a third party demanding an apology along with accusatory statements about the broadcast. Any institution that accepts government money must abide by FERPA including charter schools.
Always Learning, yes, I agree that Eva has violated the student’s confidentiality. I should have made my opinion about that clearer, but I think PBS has a duty also here to do the same by unlinking or redacting the letter from its website. It made the letter publicly available, not Eva.
And PBS accepts a good chunk of government money too, does it not?
Eva and her ilk don’t even believe in the concept of “disability” or that there is a category known as “special ed,” or in IEP’s.
Or perhaps Eva does, but doesn’t deign to take those unfortunates on. According to one staffer, she responds to kids in hardship, including those based on disability with the following comment:
“SUCCESS ACADEMY is are not a Social Services agency.”
Eva Moskowitz is on the same page with Duncan. To both of them, there’s no such thing as “special ed.” In her opinion, that which the traditional school approach categorizes as “special ed,” is nothing more than a lack of “maturity” as a result of “mama” failing to her her job. Those whose fail to “mature” — or have the effects of poor parenting reversed — under Eva’s system are kicked out… err… “counseled out.”
This is from PAGE 5 of the 2010 NEW YORK MAGAZINE story on Eva and her schools:
http://nymag.com/news/features/65614/index4.html
————————————————-
“At Harlem Success, disability is a dirty word.
” ‘I’m not a big believer in special ed,’ (SUCCESS ACADEMY’s instructional leader) Fucaloro says. For many children who arrive with individualized education programs, or IEPs, he goes on, the real issues are ‘maturity and undoing what the parents allow the kids to do in the house—usually mama—and I reverse that right away.’
“When remediation falls short, according to sources in and around the network, families are counseled out. ‘Eva told us that “the school is not a social-service agency,” ‘ says the Harlem Success teacher. ‘That was an actual quote.’
“In one case, says a teacher at P.S. 241, a set of twins started kindergarten at the co-located HSA 4 last fall. One of them proved difficult and was placed on a part-time schedule, ‘so the mom took both of them out and put them in our school. She has since put the calm sister twin back in Harlem Success, but they wouldn’t take the boy back. We have the harder, troubled one; they have the easier one.’
“Such triage is business as usual, says the former network staffer, when the schools are vexed by behavioral problems: ‘They don’t provide the counseling these kids need.’ If students are deemed bad ‘fits’ and their parents refuse to move them, the staffer says, the administration ‘makes it a nightmare’ with repeated suspensions and midday summonses. After a 5-year-old was suspended for two days for allegedly running out of the building, the child’s mother says the school began calling her every day ‘saying he’s doing this, he’s doing that. Maybe they’re just trying to get rid of me and my child, but I’m not going to give them that satisfaction.’ ”
“At her school alone, the Harlem Success teacher says, at least half a dozen lower-grade children who were eligible for IEPs have been withdrawn this school year. If this account were to reflect a pattern, Moskowitz’s network would be effectively winnowing students before third grade, the year state testing begins.
” ‘The easiest and fastest way to improve your test scores,’ observes a DoE principal in Brooklyn, ‘is to get higher-performing students into your school.’ And to get the lower-performing students out.”
Just watched the PBS Newshour.
At the end of this beautiful report, the other side of the Bill and Melinda defense of testing last week, the Newshour had an editor’s note that while it stands by its report about Success Academy, it regrets not giving Eva a chance to respond to a family featured in the report.
She couldn’t control that show
I should think PBS regrets not giving Eva more chances to embarrass herself further a la Michelle Rhee.
Allowing her to respond to the one family on air would be criminal unless the PBS Newshour requires her response to come with a response to the question of why 32 out of 132 students were given suspensions. That is 24% of the students, and those 32 students — presumably 5 and 6 years old — were given 101 suspensions. She is not allowed to castigate one child without any reporter asking her whether her claim is that 32 students or 24% of the Kindergarten children are doing those kinds of things. And to hear Ms. Moskowitz’ explanation as to how such an unbelievable thing could be happening when every one of those kids had parents who not only sought out a better school for their kids, but agreed to do all that Success Academy asked them to do. What the heck is going on in a school that results in 1/4 of the 5 year olds being violent (according to Ms. Moskowitz)? I sure hope PBS calls out Eva Moskowitz on the outrageous claims she makes instead of allowing her insistence that every single one of those 32 children — nearly 1 out of every 4 children in her school — was so violent at age 5 that she needed to suspend them from her school.