Leo Casey, executive director of the Albert Shanker Institute, notes that numerous authorities warn about the adverse effects of suspending students from school. He notes that Eva Moskowitz, by contrast, believes that suspending students teaches them important lessons and makes it less likely that they will need to be suspended in the future. She belittles the New York City public schools for reducing suspensions.
Casey compares the suspensions that Success Academy charter schools reported to the U.S. Department of Education to the suspensions that SA reported to the New York State Department of Education and finds that the reported rates are different.
Here is the executive summary of the Shanker Institute report:
Success Academy Charter School CEO Eva Moskowitz has taken up the issue of school discipline recently, defending the practices in her own schools and criticizing the efforts to reform student discipline in the New York City public schools. A close inspection of available data shows that: first, Success Academy has misrepresented its suspensions to the U.S. Education Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection, reporting only two suspensions while reporting hundreds of suspensions to the New York State Education Department; second, that when students of the same age groups are compared, Success Academy charter schools suspend their students at roughly seven times the rate of New York City public schools; and third, that the suspended students are overwhelmingly African American and Latino. Moskowitz’s attacks on New York City public schools reform efforts is designed as a shot across the bow of the U.S. Education Department and U.S. Justice Department, which has advised that excessive suspensions of students of color is a violation of U.S. civil rights law.
Moskowitz defends suspensions as a valid disciplinary tool and mocks the public schools for minimizing suspensions:
The New York City public school policies that Moskowitz derides are part of a national reform effort, inspired by a body of research showing that overly punitive disciplinary policies are ineffective and discriminatory. Based on this research evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and School Discipline Consensus Project of the Council of State Governments have all gone on record on the harmful effects of employing such policies. The U.S. Education Department, the U.S. Justice Department, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, consortia of researchers, national foundations, and the Dignity in Schools advocacy coalition have all examined the state of student discipline in America’s schools in light of this research.1
Their findings? Suspensions and expulsions, the most severe forms of school discipline, are being used excessively in American schools, often for such minor infractions such as “talking back” or being out of uniform. Further, these severe punishments are being applied disproportionality to students of color, especially African-American and Latino boys, students with disabilities and LGBT youth.
As a result of these data, the U.S. Education Department and U.S. Justice Department issued guidance to schools, based on their finding that discriminatory uses of suspensions and expulsions were in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Since this guidance came from the federal agencies that are charged with the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, it added the force of the law to the powerful moral arguments for addressing the problem of discriminatory discipline. School districts and schools, public and charter, took notice. The more progressive minded, such as the new de Blasio administration of the New York City Department of Education, began to reform their disciplinary practices in accord with these regulations. As a consequence, the suspensions and expulsions from New York City’s public schools have been dramatically reduced.
It will be interesting to see if the new Secretary of Education John King, himself a leader in the “no-excuses” charter movement, will require Success Academy charters to abide by Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

If this report is true—and the Shanker Institute is very careful into its assertions—then it’s another example that the self-styled “education reform” movement not only uses worst management practices but also worst pedagogical/educational practices.
A shameful twofer.
😡
LikeLike
From the Shanker Institute report:
“What were the race and ethnicity characteristics of Success Academy’s suspended students? Only the Civil Rights Data Collection of the U.S. Department of Education requires that districts and schools report the race and ethnicity of suspended students; but, as previously noted, since Success Academy reported only two of its hundreds of suspensions to the federal government, we have no direct source of information on this matter. We do know, however, that in the 2013-14 school year, seven of the eighteen Success Academy charter schools (Harlem Success I through V, Bed-Stuy Success I and Bronx Success I) accounted for nearly 90 percent of all suspensions, with suspension rates above the average for all Success Academy schools. In each of those schools, the combined share of African-American and Latino students was in the high 90 percent range. ”
SEVEN of the 18 Success Academy schools accounted for nearly 90% of the suspensions in the entire network. In all 7 of those schools, the combined share of African-American and Latino students was in the high 90 percent range. Not all Success Academy schools have high suspension rates — that’s why we constantly hear upper middle class college-educated parents posting to defend the school saying “my child’s Success Academy school isn’t like that”. I suspect they are correct, and the schools where middle class students attend are different. And that’s the most offensive thing of all.
Or maybe the most offensive thing is that SUNY Charter Institute allowed Eva Moskowitz to open schools in affluent neighborhoods and drop priority for at-risk kids. These new schools have low suspension and attrition rates since a majority of the children are middle class. That certainly helps to “lower” overall suspension and attrition rates at Success Academy schools, but I hope no reporter will be fooled and think that the “averages” always cited by Ms. Moskowitz tell the whole story. One has to look at each of her school’s separately since the ones with mostly low-income students are the ones where suspension and attrition is far more rampant.
LikeLike
Mercedes did a nice analysis of the whole Eva’s letter and the over situation here:
LikeLike
I think it’s a tough issue for public schools (unlike her charters, which can apparently do anything they want) because there is a certain segment of parents (here anyway) who want kids removed for all kinds of reasons because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that kids who misbehave are either 1. a bad influence on their child, or 2. harming their child because the class is distracted by the behavior. So public schools have to weigh the interests of that group against the harm to the students who are removed or subject to harsh punishment and reach some kind of reasonable middle ground everyone can live with. Obviously civil rights violations are a different matter- if the harsh punishment is doled out based on bias that has to stop, but the parents who want extreme disciplinary measures are unaware of that part of the issue and instead just see it as rules that everyone has to comply with and assume it’s being applied fairly.
I think it’s easy for her to jeer at this because she doesn’t have to wrestle with the competing interests – she can just point to “choice” knowing that her students who don’t fit with the program have a public school they can attend but that public school will have to deal with the conflicting or competing interests (either well or poorly- they may screw it up but they can’t ignore it) because that’s in the basic DNA of a “public” system.
LikeLike
All this discussion of suspension policies has me wondering. New York State public schools are required to provide home tutoring services for suspended students, with certain limits on number of hours allowed depending on grade level. Here in Upstate, those services are provided by BOCES, or possibly by the local district at off-site location.
I do not know if charter schools must follow this same requirement, but perhaps someone here does. I will look into it as well.
LikeLike
You bring up an interesting point. If charters are “public” schools, shouldn’t they have to abide by this rule? I doubt that they do this because it is expensive to do, and they probably whip out their private status to avoid the responsibility.
LikeLike
“Suspensions and expulsions, the most severe forms of school discipline, are being used excessively in American schools, often for such minor infractions such as “talking back” or being out of uniform.”
To be accurate, I doubt the suspensions are directly for being out of uniform or talking back. The problem is that SA and other “no excuses” charters have a mindset where you never listen to a child, negotiate with him, understand the reasons for her behavior, allow for exceptions or anything else that smacks of humanity. You simply draw the line and you enforce it – to the bitter end if necessary. This all but guarantees power struggles because kids aren’t feeling listened to but rather shut down. They believe they’re simply trying to explain their point of view and what might be a misunderstanding. But SA can’t allow for that and deems it “talking back”. And when people aren’t feeling heard, they tend to yell louder, so the problem escalates. What could have been resolved with a simple gentle request to “please tie your shoe, I’d hate to see you trip and hurt yourself” ends up in a shouting match (or worse) because kids feel so completely frustrated. From the school’s perspective, the shouting (or worse) is completely unacceptable and deserving of a suspension. But from the kid’s point of view, it’s the only alternative to complete submission, which only some kids – the meekest and least mentally healthy – are capable of.
LikeLike
Dienne: I preface this by making it clear that I take nothing away from your well reasoned and balanced observations.
I just add: another example of how the leading rheephormsters mandate twofers: worst management practices paired with worst pedagogical/educational practices.
Or as I see it: I am sometimes amazed at the lack of “people smarts” exhibited by the leaders, enforcers and enablers of the self-styled “education reform” movement.
And at times I am not so much astonished at how badly they “manage” people [in every sense of the word] but that they are surprised, hurt and stunned that their “stuff” turns out so badly.
Too often they are truly clueless.
😎
LikeLike
This to me is the real question, because a private citizen charter operator is one thing, but public officials are another. If there are two sets of rules for the two sectors, that’s a problem that has to be at least admitted and then honestly addressed, particularly if the public officials are promoting charter schools, which the Obama Administration has done more than any prior Administration:
“Educators across the country will be watching closely to see if all schools are required to take it on. If the greatest transgressors of federal civil rights law are given a bye for political reasons, it is hard to see how the law can be successfully enforced anywhere.”
LikeLike
The worst transgressors are not just “given a bye”. They are rewarded! Success Academy is the recipient of who knows how much in federal grants, primarily because they crow about their great results, helped by their suspension policy. The SUNY Charter Institute rewards them with more and more charters because their results — thanks to the help of all the low-scoring children who disappear — far surpass any other charter organization. I have no doubt SUNY will continue to reward them again. Results is all that matters anymore, so if some 5 year olds are suspended and leave, or just made to feel “misery” and leave — that just helps their bottom line.
LikeLike
On that question- I don’t know if you’ve seen this but Democrats for Education Reform are fundraising for Hillary Clinton:
“Joy Resmovits obtained an invitation for a “meet and greet” from a group describing itself as a PAC “supporting the education vision” of Clinton. America’s Teachers is hosting a “community discussion” on education at the office of Propper Daley in Los Angeles Wednesday. The firm’s co-president is Mark Daley, who worked for Clinton’s campaign in 2008.
Appearing at the event are Steve Barr, the chairman of California Democrats for Education Reform, founder of the Green Dot Public Schools charter school chain and CEO of the Future is Now education nonprofit; Propper Daley co-president Greg Propper, and former Democratic National Committee Chairman and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Also listed on the invitation are Naveed Amalfard and Luke Villalobos from America’s Teachers.”
Voters and rank and file labor union members are going to have to insist politicians start telling the truth about their plans, or we are going to end up with another Obama Administration. This year we should have a real debate. Public schools won’t survive another 16 years of anti-public school lawmakers.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-essential-politics-html-20151021-htmlstory.html
LikeLike
Eva Moskowitz just posted a SECOND letter to PBS in which she again claims that her school’s attrition rates are “normal” and that she only suspends violent 5 year olds. Apparently, no one is questioning how so many violent 5 year olds are lucky enough to get spots in her lottery. Just bad luck?
Eva Moskowitz’ ONLY source for attrition rates at her school is Beth Fertig, an education reporter for WNYC. That’s right — Ms. Moskowitz has access to the current attrition information at each of her schools and instead of using THAT information, she quotes numbers from a single year – 2010-2011 – that a news reporter with limited access to information compiled. Why? If anyone has access to up to date numbers it is Eva Moskowitz, and she obviously provided very different numbers to the IBO very recently for their July 2015 Report “School Indicators for New York City Charter Schools.”
Click to access school-indicators-for-new-york-city-charter-schools-2013-2014-school-year-july-2015.pdf
On page 9 of this IBO Report, the attrition rates of 53 charter schools who had been around long enough to have students from K – 5th grade are reported “in aggregate”. Success Academy schools are 4 of these 53 charter schools. Their attrition rate — the percentage of Kindergarten students who had left that charter school by their 3rd grade year, was 26.5%. Another 22.5% of those K children left by 5th grade. In other words, a whopping 49.5% of the starting Kindergarten class at those 53 charter schools was gone.
Oddly, the IBO did NOT list each of those 53 charter schools separately so we could see how the attrition rates of the 4 Success Academy schools in the group compared to the other charter schools. But Eva Moskowitz most certainly has that up to date information. Why isn’t she using that as a source instead of quoting a news reporter’s 4 year old data for a single year? Is Beth Fertig’s effort to compile a year of data from 2010 somehow more reliable than the data that Success Academy itself provided to the IBO for it’s July 2015 report that covers many more years? Say what?
Perhaps Leo Casey can request that disaggregated data from the IBO since Eva Moskowitz is not providing it herself. How did the attrition rates of those 4 Success Academy schools compare with the other charter schools in that 53 school study? How did their suspension rates compare? If the same charter schools with high suspension rates also have high attrition rates, it certainly shows an extremely strong correlation between suspension and attrition. And attrition rates alone demonstrate that charter schools are meeting the needs or their students or not. Let’s see how Success Academy’s 4 charter schools compare to those 53 charter schools in the IBO study. If they are losing far more students than almost any other charter school, isn’t that worth knowing and asking why?
LikeLike
“Apparently, no one is questioning how so many violent 5 year olds are lucky enough to get spots in her lottery. Just bad luck?”
And furthermore, were those 5 year olds violent before they came to SA? I don’t know how such information could be obtained, given student privacy laws (not that Eva seems to care about those), but I would love to see an investigation into that. My guess is that it’s SA itself that is making these kids violent.
LikeLike
It is absurd and racist and offensive that Eva Moskowitz can sit in an interview and claim that all those suspended 5 year old children are “violent” without being questioned further. It’s certainly possible that one or two children could have a serious issue that would make them violent (although her first letter made it clear that inexperienced teachers thought punishing would help a struggling child crying out for help). But we are supposed to believe that 24% of the 5 year olds in the other Success Academy were violent? Those 32 5 and 6 year old students (out of 132 in the school) were given 101 suspensions, so not only were they violent, they were violent on a number of occasions! How offensive that SUNY Charter Institute has accepted her word for the violence — is that because they just assume poor and minority 5 year olds are so regularly violent that it’s not surprising that Success Academy would have so many in their school?
LikeLike
Maybe they only became violent when exposed to the rigid, authoritative curriculum. I worked in an elementary school for over twenty-five years, and I can honestly say “violent” kindergartners were rare, and a couple of them were crack babies. That’s not to say we didn’t deal with normal discipline including some hitting, kicking and even spitting on a few occasions, which were handled without suspensions.
LikeLike
retired – that’s exactly what I think. To whatever extent these kids are “violent” (assuming that’s not just hyperbole on Eva’s part, which I admit is a big assumption), I think it’s specifically because of the conditions at SA. Young children simply can’t handle that kind of pressure. And when they are under pressure, they need help soothing and calming themselves down. But at SA, everything is treated as a behavior problem and there is only one way to handle that – with strict discipline). If you take a young child already under unreasonable pressure and then try to threaten and punish him, of course you’re going to see violence.
LikeLike
“Vowelence”
That little boy was vowelent
With vowels used as knives
I really don’t know what he meant
But, man it gave me hives
LikeLike
Yes, I have witnessed this myself with inexperienced teachers in affluent schools. They don’t realize that a child is acting out due to stress and their “solution” is to do something to create even more stress for that child! But Success Academy has far more of its share of these supposed “problem children” and it’s simply not believable that it’s just “bad luck” that so many of those kids win spots in her school.
Here is a beautifully written piece about what an experienced teacher does when teaching a child like that. It always makes me cry:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-murray/dear-parent-about-that-kid_b_6154898.html
LikeLike
Public schools in urban areas, charter and traditional, need to get rid of their asinine “zero tolerance” discipline policies. Discipline needs to be comprehensive, you can’t just hand out suspensions for every single infraction. Zero tolerance discipline policies also discriminate against minorities and LGBT youth. #zero4zero #RethinkDiscipline
LikeLike
Since “broken windows” policing was touted as “data based” in the 1990’s and zero tolerance came out of that, one would think that alone would make ed reformers re-examine the unintended consequences that can result with an over reliance on “data-based” anything, but they don’t seem to see the connection.
I don’t know how you look at the “school to prison pipeline” and miss it. but they seem to be incapable of seeing it.
LikeLike
Moskowitz’s discipline policies are toxic for students and teachers–and especially for young children. They’re tantamount to child abuse: http://ecepolicyworks.com/the-color-of-success-evas-academies-of-child-abuse/
LikeLike
So now I’m going to do what I feel I have to, but what makes me lonely and unsupported: speak what I see teaching in a school where there are students who want to listen, work, and learn having time taken from them daily by disruptive students.
Please don’t put it all on the teacher. Teachers are not miracle workers. If a kid is hell-bent on being disruptive, he or she will do it. I cannot give all the attention kids lack at home to them. I cannot replace loving, stable parents for masses of students while providing academic support for all. Stop. Stop expecting that of me. STOP! It’s outrageous, and it’s killing us!
The kids who my heart really goes out to are those from lower-income families who have a work ethic that could help them get a good higher education, but who are being dragged down, yes, by just what the toxic reformers say: being trapped in failing schools. Yes, there are schools that are failing because of lack of discipline. Yes, they are out there. Yes, well-behaved kids who want to learn are being dragged down by the opposite, who, as you point out, cannot be kicked out.
Instead of denying that this is a problem, those who believe in public education and want to stop the reform wars need to work on a viable solution to this problem. This is a major reason that reformers are winning. They have behind them the public who want to escape their children from schools full of behavior problems. This is why some low-income, minority groups are behind the reform movement, because that’s where schools are in the worst shape.
Yes, it would be better to address income inequality on a major scale. Meanwhile, while only Bernie Sanders is running for president on that platform, yet he is not the favored candidate, and the rich have so much power and influence, we can assume that this change will not be happening anytime soon, and that many students will be subjected to regular public education such as it is – something that mirrors its location. Schools in chaotic, low-income neighborhoods tend to be chaotic and poorly funded. Let the well-behaved kids who want to learn do so. If those who are against the reform movement want to fight it – and I am against it, because I know that it is not what it claims itself to be, and cares first and foremost about profit – then start coming up with solutions to the behavior problems! Stop dumping it on individual teachers to deal with alone!
Please, stop denying that behavior problems are a major problem in American schools.
LikeLike