The parent of the 10-year-old boy who was interviewed by John Merrow on PBS filed a complaint to the U.S. Department of Education that Eva Moskowitz violated her child’s privacy rights under the federal law FERPA by disclosing her child’s confidential disciplinary record tithe media.

Categories Charter Schools, Education Reform, Harlem Success Academy

26 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

2old2teach says:

October 30, 2015 at 7:07 pm

I am so glad that this mother is taking a stand. We all know that people accustomed to using power and privilege to get their own way too often are allowed to control events. Moskowitz needs to be taken down a few notches.

Reply
- Jack says:
  
  October 31, 2015 at 6:41 am
  
  Here’s a video of Eva Moskowitz’ press conference (Friday, October 30, 2015) in response to the latest “Go to go” list controversy.
  
  Boy, those Success Academy principals — like Candido “Go-to-Go-List” Brown speaking here, and the ones in the background — sure to do cry a lot.
  
  This maudlin display reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart’s tear-filled mea culpa back in 1988:
  
  This Success Academy press conference is just plain weird, and does not move me in the least. I mean, seriously. Does Eva and her handlers really think that, outside of Success Academy’s insulated cult, this such a grotesque spectacle will have any positive effect on the Success Academy image?
  
  Embedded in this event is their simultaneous fabrication of victimhood:
  
  CANDIDO BROWN: “Someone on my team, who is not a part of that meeting, sent the email to the network because he knew that what the meeting produced (the “Got-to-Go List”) went against our (Success Academy’s) policies.”
  
  Actually, Principal Brown, that person sent it precisely BECAUSE he/she believed that the “Got-to-Go List” was precisely reflective of, and consistent with Success Academy policies. This is despite Eva dismissing all of such accusations as “crazy talk”, and hearing Eva, in multiple letters, deny the existence of such practices, with Eva, in effect, saying over and over… it’s all lies. If what you say is true, prove it. Show us the truth! But you can’t, because there is no proof… and on and on…
  
  Well, Eva. You asked for it, and now you’ve got it.
  
  And now that the public has the proof—that you formerly insisted did not exist—your response is this clumsy, transparent attempt at misdirection where you order this principal to appear at a press conference, and, reading a script you prepared for him, do the full-on Jimmy Swaggart tear-fest?
  
  What-ever.
  
  Even still, some of what Principal Brown says is nevertheless revealing;
  
  CANDIDO BROWN: (In creating the “Go-to-Go List” then kicking out 9 out of the 15 on the list) “I was doing what I thought that I needed to do to fix a school (unintelligible… “where it not to my whole charter… ” or something.. I can’t make it out, JACK).”
  
  Principal Brown, that begs the obvious question…
  
  What influences from above, starting with Eva herself — explicit or implied, direct or indirect — led you to the point that you were thought that implementing a policy of kicking out certain undesirable “Go-to-go” children — complete with an actual “Got-to-Go List” — was what “I needed to do to fix a school?”
  
  Tearful as your performance was, for you to claim that all of this “kicking out” and “Got to Go List” stuff came about in a total vacuum — originating wholly with you and not in anyway due to influences from above you, including from Eva herself — does not pass the smell test.
  
  This implies the unlikely scenario that, independent of you, Principals at several other Success Academy schools with sky-high attrition also acted totally on their own and kicked out hordes of children, with again, no pressure or influence from above, or from Eva herself — explicit or implied, direct or indirect.
  
  Such a claim strains credulity. Eva is Nixon-like in this scenario.
  
  Can a typical Success Academy principal or other official act on their own this way?
  
  Below are some quotes from the Glass Door, a site where former Success Academy teachers were and are allowed to vent, without fear of Eva, and where they know Eva could not censor their comments:
  
  http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2014/08/citizen-jacks-compendium-of-teacher.html
  
  Here’s a sampling that corroborates the notion that Principal Candido Brown did not act alone, and that others above him, including and especially Eva, bear the majority of the responsibility:
  
  FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER: “The (Success Academy) organization runs on a cult of personality that revolves around pleasing (Eva Moskowitz), which makes me skeptical that they can truly scale this model of education.”
  
  FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER: “(Success Academy) Leaders rule through fear and intimidation.”
  
  FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER: “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 whom you love are constantly being kicked out.”
  
  FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER: — Also, (Success
  Academy leaders need to, but do not) “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?”
  
  FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER: “Teachers openly MOCKED 6-year-olds with learning disabilities, telling them they would not want to see them in the same grade again next year (i.e. held back, JACK) because they were neither smart, nor hard working, and hopefully would not be their student again — (and say this) in front of the entire classroom.”
  
  FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER: “The feedback (from superiors) is ALWAYS negative, without any sense of ‘you can do it’ or ‘we can do this together’… (instead) it’s ‘Get your f*cking sh*t together!’ ”
  
  FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER: “Teachers are kept in constant fear of surprise visits and sample collections for evaluation.”
  
  FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER: “(Eva Moskowitz’) 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.
  
  (Success Academy and its leadership resembles) ‘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.”
  
  FORMER SUCCESS ACADEMY TEACHER: “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.”
  
  Reply
- Jack says:
  
  October 31, 2015 at 7:32 am
  
  I listened to it again, and finally figured out what Candido Brown was saying…
  
  ( 00:55 – 01:12)
  
  ( 00:55 – 01:12)
  CANDIDO BROWN: (In creating the “Go-to-Go List” then kicking out 9 out of the 15 on the list) “I was doing what I thought that I needed to do to fix a school where I could not send my own child (unless I implemented the “Got-to-Go” list / policy, JACK)
  
  Reply
- Jack says:
  
  October 31, 2015 at 7:38 am
  
  Here’s some coverage of the press conference
  
  http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2015/10/30/eva-moskowitz-calls-got-to-go-list-an-anomaly-as-success-principal-gives-tearful-apology/#.VjSlTaT_r-U
  
  It has an interesting ending.
  
  “Yet on Friday, Moskowitz said that ‘a very small percentage of kids,’ particularly those with special needs, might not find the right support at Success, and should instead consider a district school.
  
  “ ‘Success may not be the absolute best setting for every child,’ she said.”
  
  ———
  
  THEN STOP CALLING YOURSELF A PUBLIC SCHOOL, STOP HAVING CHILDREN HOLD UP PLACARDS THAT SAY…
  
  “Charter Schools ARE Public Schools.”
  
  STOP STEALING SPACE AND ENTIRE SCHOOLS AWAY FROM TRULY PUBLIC, OPEN-ENROLLMENT SCHOOLS THAT DO WHAT YOU FINALLY — FINALLY!!! — ADMITTED THAT YOUR SCHOOLS DO NOT DO…
  
  Accept and teach each and every child in the school, no matter how demanding (i.e. special ed., English Language Learners, etc) or how troublesome, or or how expensive that might be.
  
  Reply
- Jack says:
  
  October 31, 2015 at 7:43 am
  
  Here’s a great comment from CHALKBEAT:… in the Comments section for this article:
  
  http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2015/10/30/eva-moskowitz-calls-got-to-go-list-an-anomaly-as-success-principal-gives-tearful-apology/#.VjSlTaT_r-U
  
  −
  
  parent010203 • 12 hours ago
  
  Eva Moskowitz’ last sentence of her statement when she explains why she didn’t fire the principal for this: “and at Success we simply don’t believe in throwing people on the trash heap for the sake of public relations…”
  
  Unless they are 10 year old children….in which case Eva Moskowitz has no problem throwing them on the trash heap for the sake of public relations.
  
  More likely this principal, who trained at Harlem Success Academy 1 and Harlem Success Academy 2 can’t be thrown under the bus. The NY Times reported “Ms. Fleischman, the education manager, warned her colleagues in a follow-up email that the goal should not have been put in an email….” Not that the goal was wrong — it just shouldn’t be in an e-mail.
  
  Reply
Lenny Rothbart says:

October 30, 2015 at 8:38 pm

This wan’t an accident, something that slipped through. It wasn’t inadvertent; it was deliberate & repeated. Moskowitz was aware of the law & knew exactly what she was doing, releasing that information. I hope she is nailed to the wall.

Reply
Linda Johnson says:

October 30, 2015 at 8:50 pm

This is what I’m dying to find out:

How do Success Academy students do on the exams they take once they graduate from the school? Have any of the parents given their “scholars” different tests to see how they compare?

When a student is drilled on a standardized test for the entire academic year, the results are not valid.

Reply
- Suzanne says:
  
  October 30, 2015 at 11:45 pm
  
  Linda, not a single Success Academy 8th student scored well enough on the entrance exam to be admitted to an elite NYC high school. Others may provide you with links, but a majority of the info you seek can be found on this blog.
  
  Reply
- Uncle Albert's Nephew says:
  
  October 31, 2015 at 4:02 pm
  
  Wouldn’t an even better question be to ask what happens to the charter kids after they get into college? I’m sure that they’ll ace their SATs because test prep is what it’s all about. But being good at tests isn’t going to get them through freshman year.
  
  Reply
  - Michael Fiorillo says:
    
    November 2, 2015 at 3:31 pm
    
    Don’t be so sure of that, Uncle Albert’s Nephew: as Suzanne points out, not a single SA student passed the exam for admittance to NYC’s specialized high schools and, given the totalitarian mindset that dominates these sweatshops, there’s no reason to think they’d do better on any exam other than the state exams their Pavlov’s Teachers are training them to take.
Robert D. Skeels * rdsathene says:

October 30, 2015 at 9:28 pm

Eva S. Moskowitz is shaping up to be the Generalissimo Pinochet of the 21st century.

Reply
- retiredbutmissthekids says:
  
  October 31, 2015 at 12:46 am
  
  Nope, I call her Evita…as in Peron.
  
  Reply
Steve B says:

October 30, 2015 at 9:54 pm

Moskowitz has no respect for our nation’s laws, our citizens, or our democratic way of life, and uses her bully pulpit, supported by handsomely paid politicians, to flagrantly violate our society on a daily basis.

Another parasite of the corporate agenda, she must be held accountable for all of her criminal actions…closing her “schools” and bringing parents and students to Albany as political pawns, the child abuse running rampant through the halls and classrooms of her business world, and most recently, her violation of a child’s privacy rights guaranteed under federal law.

A person like Moskowitz is an enemy of our children, of our public schools, of our citizens.

She is an enemy of the United States, and laws must be either strengthened to protect our children from business model, profit-driven, and power hungry predators like Moskowitz, and severe penalties too, must be carried out against those like her.

We will not stand for this…expose her for all of our people to see…and expose those who prop her up in their attempts to usurp our democratic values.

Reply
AlwaysLearning says:

October 30, 2015 at 10:34 pm

There may also be a violation of the Individuals and Disabilities Education Act under the Child Find mandate—if that mandate was not followed. Child Find requires all schools to identify and evaluate all children who may have disabilities under the Child Find mandate. Children with behavior disorders are covered under Child Find. I am not an expert —but in her letter Eva Moskowitz lists 19 different conducts the child engaged in that could be indicative of children with underlying behavior disorders. That documentation alone, in my opinion should have prompted a following of Child Find by the school. Here is a link that provides information about Child Find:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/child.find.mandate.htm

Reply
- Jack says:
  
  October 30, 2015 at 11:36 pm
  
  Louisiana teacher and blogger Mercedes Schneider highlights an important aspect of this situation that others, including myself, have thus far missed.
  
  https://deutsch29.wordpress.co…
  
  ( an excerpt from Schneider’s article appears at the end of this post)
  
  The behaviors of this Success Academy child in question indicate that the child suffers from some disabling condition or learning disability—ADD, ADHD, oppositional defiance disorder, etc. As such, the child needs specialized care and attention. A specialist has to be brought in to identify the innate problem. Based on that and other input, a program, including an I.E.P. mandating an on-going plan of intervention, must then be implemented.
  
  None of that goes on at Success Academy.
  
  Eva’s only brilliant response to the child’s disability is for her and her staff to suspend, suspend, suspend. She and the others in charge at SUCCESS ACADEMY apparently believe that doing so will just magically “suspend” the child’s innate disability out of existence, as in days of yore, when witches would be hired to cast spells to drive out the demons that caused a child’s troubling mental condition… many of those conditions are what we in the modern world now identify as autism, ADD, etc.
  
  Indeed, based on prior comments to the press, the folks at SUCCESS ACADEMY don’t even believe in the concept of “disability,” or that there is such a category known as “special ed,”. Nor do the believe in bringing in specialists, or in implementing IEP’s.
  
  Or perhaps Eva does believe such innate deficiencies exist, but doesn’t deign to take those unfortunates on … dumping them back into the public schools for those folks to handle. This, in turn, places heavy financial and manpower demand on those public schools, as special ed. kids require highly-trained, highly paid special ed. teacher, a small class size or student-to-teacher ratio, etc.
  
  Essentially, Eva views children in general as commodities… valued on two criteria:
  
  1) cheapest to educate — no expensive special ed kids draining your budget
  
  AND
  
  2) potential for high test scores — again, the special ed kids are unable to deliver those.
  
  According to one staffer, she responds to kids in any low-test-score-causing hardship, including those based on disability with the following comment:
  
  “SUCCESS ACADEMY is not a Social Services agency.”
  
  Eva Moskowitz is on the same page with recently-departed Secretary of Ed. Arne Duncan. To both of them, there’s no such thing as “special ed.” In her opinion — as expressed by one of her top administrators (JUST BELOW) — is that what 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…
  ————————————————-
  “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 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.”
  ———————————————
  
  Teacher and blogger Mercedes Schneider further underscores this in her analysis of the PBS piece on Eva and her Success Academies:
  
  https://deutsch29.wordpress.co…
  
  ————————————————–
  
  MERCEDES SCHNEIDER:
  
  “Here is my question for Moskowitz:
  
  “If the student had a history of (as his mother describes) ‘outbursts” and meltdowns’ and he had already displayed such behavior at school, then why would Success Academies allow this student to participate in an off-campus excursion?
  
  “Such seems to be a poor choice given that the SA teachers/administrators appear to have no specific plan in place for (note the pun) successfully diffusing the student’s outbursts. Thus, the faculty/administrative decision take the student into an unfamiliar setting (a field trip) without a proven behavior plan was foolish.
  
  “Third (and related to the second observation), in all of her efforts to publicize the student’s behavior file in an effort to exonerate her schools, Moskowitz includes absolutely no evidence that Success Academies attempted to discover what might trigger the student’s outbursts/meltdowns in order to formulate a plan of action to help the child learn to manage his own behavior, thereby promoting his own social health (and, by extension, the social health of his classmates and teachers).
  
  “In short, Moskowitz’s point in her letter to Merrow was to defend her schools, not to actually help the child.
  
  “Following her offering details from two incidents, Moskowitz places blame back on student and his mother, even as she offers nothing by way of trying to help student and mother to understand and manage the student’s behavior:
  
  – – – – – – – – – –
  EVA MOSKOWITZ: “Incidents like this occurred on a regular basis. Frankly, it was only by applying a very lenient standard that this student was only suspended eight times over nearly three years in our schools. …
  
  “As you can see, the situation here was challenging not only because of the child, but because of his mother as well. We often find that in the end, while we can succeed with almost any student, if the parent is not willing to work with us, that makes things much harder.”
  – – – – – – – – – –
  
  “Again, Moskowitz offers no evidence of having tried to understand what might have prompted the student’s outbursts/meltdowns.
  
  “It could well be that ‘the very structured environment’ and ‘very high academic and behavioral expectations’ of which Success Academy Prospect Heights principal Monica Komery speaks might be too much for some students.
  
  “The farthest that Moskowitz will go is to ‘put up with’ students like Jamir Geidi, even for years. Beyond repeated suspensions, Success Academies has nothing to offer the Jamir Geidis who enter SA’s ‘very structured’ halls.
  
  “The ‘success’ only comes if those pesky suspended-and-suspended-again students are molded into a Moskowitz-forged image.
  
  “If not, they must go.”
  
  Reply
  - AlwaysLearning says:
    
    October 31, 2015 at 9:23 am
    
    Moskowitz’s school had the duty to locate, identify and provide services to this child or any child who may be disabled and may need special education and related services. Her public letter documents that this child was struggling with severe behavior issues. If school employees suspect or have reason to suspect that a child has a disability they have a duty to act on the child’s behalf. In her letter, student behavior accounts are provided by staff members who should have been aware that this child was struggling to control his behavior on his own and that there may have been underlying causes for that.
    Under Child Find there is Caselaw: Liability Due to Failure to Act
    Damages Under Child Find
  - caligirl says:
    
    November 1, 2015 at 6:17 am
    
    Do not call yourself a public school !
Jack says:

October 31, 2015 at 9:06 am

ACTUAL TAPE RECORDING of Success Academy administrator admitting to a parent that the school will not provide legally-required Special Ed. services:

“We’re technically out of compliance because we aren’t able to meet what his IEP recommends for him.”

From this New York Daily News article:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/success-academy-tapes-reveal-attempt-transfer-student-article-1.1441098
————————

Success Academy parent’s secret tapes reveal attempt to push out special needs student

The Upper West Side Success Academy charter school has touted itself for not trying to push out kids with special needs or behavior problems, but a parent has audio to the contrary

By
Juan Gonzalez

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Friday, August 30, 2013, 2:30 AM

Call them the charter school tapes.

The parent of a special education kindergarten pupil at the Upper West Side Success Academy charter school secretly tape recorded meetings in which school administrators pressed her to transfer her son back into the public school system.

The tapes, a copy of which the mother supplied the Daily News, poke a hole in claims by the fast-growing Success Academy chain founded by former City Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz that it doesn’t try to push out students with special needs or behavior problems.

Nancy Zapata said she resorted to the secret tapes last December, and again in March after school officials used their “zero tolerance” discipline policy to repeatedly suspend her son, Yael, kept telephoning her at work to pick him up from school in the middle of the day and urged her to transfer him.

The News reported earlier this week that the Success network, which boasts some of the highest test scores in the city, also has far higher suspension rates than other elementary schools and that more than two dozen parents were claiming efforts to push their children out.

“There was a point when I was getting a call every day for every minor thing,” Zapata said. “They would say he was crying excessively, or not looking straight forward, or throwing a tantrum, or not walking up the stairs fast enough, or had pushed another kid.”

What school officials did not do, Zapata said, was provide the kind of special education services that her son’s individual educational plan, or IEP, requires.

That plan calls for daily speech therapy and occupational therapy for Yael. It also requires him to be placed in a smaller class, one staffed by both a regular teacher and a special education teacher.

At one point in the tapes, a Success official can be heard telling Zapata:

“We’re technically out of compliance because we aren’t able to meet what his IEP recommends for him.”

Asked about those remarks, a Success official would only say both the School District’s Special Education Committee and Success Academy now believe Yael should be transferred to a District 75 special education school.

In the tapes, however, another Success administrator is heard acknowledging that Yael’s tantrums are related to his speech disability.

“He is getting really frustrated when people can’t understand what he’s communicating, and you can’t blame him for that,” the administrator tells Zapata.

In a second meeting, the mother asks why Success admitted her son through a lottery but is not providing him all the services he needs.

“If they have those special education needs, you’re absolutely right that they need to be fulfilled,” an official replies, but then quickly adds that the network doesn’t offer smaller special ed classes in kindergarten.

“We will help them find the [appropriate] DOE placement,” the official says.

In other words, lottery or not, kindergarten kids like Yael who need smaller classes should find a public school that has one.

But Zapata has resisted the pressure to transfer her son.

When she accompanied him to the first day of school at Upper West Side Success last week, she was informed Yael will have to repeat kindergarten — the same grade that doesn’t have the special education class he needs.

“They’re trying to frustrate me enough to take him out,” Zapata said, “but I’m going to fight it.”

Reply
Jack says:

October 31, 2015 at 9:25 am

This is a not a new story.

Even a cursory googling leads one to find story after story about Success Academy’s kicking out … err… counseling out students… particularly special ed.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/success-academy-fire-parents-fight-disciplinary-policy-article-1.1438753

This one has more of the same… sky-high attrition, kids being disciplined for trival matters, complete failure to follow regulations regarding special ed.

Reply
Jack says:

October 31, 2015 at 10:22 am

Holy moley!

I just watched a one-woman Eva Moskowitz’ horror show… starring Eva herself. It’s her six-minute “Ed Talk” (get it? rhymes with “Ted Talk”) at the 2014 Corporate Reform jamboree called “Camp Philos”:

She glowingly tells the story of Sidney — an eighth grade Success Academy student — while projecting her picture on a screen. (Did she get permission?)

During Common Core testing, Sidney was in a life-threatening battle with sickle-cell anemia. Even at the most severe moment of crisis in her health, Sidney insisted on taking the entirety of that year’s Common Core testing. The adults around argued otherwise, because she had just had her infected spleen taken out that very day, “had lost a lot of weight,” and “was extremely cold and weak.” In the light of this, the principal informed Sidney that she was entitled to claim a “medical excuse” and delay taking the test.

However, Sidney wouldn’t hear of it, and took the test.

“I want to get a 4,” Sidney replied, with Eva recounting these words with emotion.

Eva’s point?

( 02:10 – 03:03 )

( 02:10 – 03:03 )
EVA MOSKOWITZ: “Children are incredibly resilient, and I would urge you to think about NOT treating children AS children… I think that we have underestimated in this country the pleasure that comes from achieving mastery, and from performance. In my experience, kids actually want to perform. The want to master. Sidney was a perfect example, even though she was in a life-threatening situation.”

Sweet Lord! What is WRONG with this woman?

Cue the Supremes:

(By the way, Camp Philos 2015 is this weekend. My invite must have got lost in the mail.
I wonder what Eva’s 2015 “Ed Talk” will be this year, given the timing.)

Reply
- Pauline P. says:
  
  October 31, 2015 at 2:15 pm
  
  I know that Eva would then call me out as a unionized slacker teacher, but the day I have to be my spleen surgically removed, I’m taking the day off. Maybe two.
  
  Reply
- caligirl says:
  
  November 1, 2015 at 6:35 am
  
  Don’t treat children like children ? Don’t treat special ed as special ed. Don’t treat special needs as special needs. Don’t treat ADHD as ADHD. Don’t bother at all because the public schools will be doing that for you.
  
  Reply
Ann Herzer says:

October 31, 2015 at 4:05 pm

Sick people connected to charter schools. Parents are insane to send their children to these schools.

Reply
Máté says:

November 1, 2015 at 7:18 pm

OK, how much time do you guys give to Eva before she resigns from SA? I say, the end for her will come at the end of the this school year.

Similarly to Rhee or Barbic, she’ll continue her blessed work elsewhere. Her financial supporters will give her the hint that bad publicity won’t go away until she stay in her position at SA. Publicly they will support her, but privately, they will tell her to go.

These businessmen are not afraid of anything more than scandals.

Reply
Jack says:

November 1, 2015 at 7:47 pm

WARNING: this is long, but well worth the read.

Below is the actual verbatim pages from the Success Academy school manual, with a description of all student behavior violations — a pretty comprehensive list — that will lead to a child’s dismissal. It backs up the accusations that John Merrow made in his report here:

I found it at John Merrow’s personal blog here: (subscribe to it if you can… he’s worked hard on this story 😉 )

http://themerrowreport.com/2015/10/15/the-rules-at-success-academies/

Here’s the pdf of the Success Academy rules:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5mXKGS4xL6iVnlZMzIyWi05eHc/view

Here’s the text:
—————————————————

“Discipline —

“Violations:

“Anytime a scholar violates school or classroom rules or policies, it is considered a behavior infraction. Behavior infractions include, but are not limited to:

” — Non-compliance with the school dress code
” — Non-compliance with the school attendance policy
” — Non-compliance with the code of conduct

“Violence and Aggression —

“We must ensure that our scholars are safe at all times in our schools. Success Academy has a zero-tolerance approach when it comes to aggressive or violent conduct that puts the safety of our scholars or staff in jeopardy.

“In the classroom, we teach our scholars strategies to peacefully handle disagreements. We teach them that violence is never the solution. Scholars who engage in aggressive or violent conduct will be suspended. Scholars who hit because “he hit me first” will also be suspended.

————

“Suspensions and Expulsion:

“Scholars who repeatedly disregard directions, compromise the safety of others, or violate our policies may be suspended.

“A short-term suspension refers to the removal of a scholar from the school for disciplinary reasons for a period of five days or fewer. A long-term suspension refers to the removal of a scholar for disciplinary reasons for a period of more than five days. Expulsion refers to the permanent removal of scholar from school for disciplinary reasons.

“If your scholar is suspended, a member of the school leadership team will call to inform you. You will receive a suspension letter at pick up or within 24 hours. You should make arrangements with the school for mandatory alternative instruction for your scholar during his or her suspension.

————

“Disciplinary Policy and Code of Conduct

“In order to establish and maintain school culture, the following Code of Conduct contains a list of possible infractions and potential consequences. Please keep in mind that the list of unacceptable conduct and consequences is not exhaustive. Teachers and staff can supplement this Code of Conduct with their own rules for classes and events.

“In addition, violations of the Code of Conduct and resulting consequences are subject to the discretion of the Principal and may be adjusted accordingly. A scholar’s prior conduct and his or her disciplinary history may be factors in determining the appropriate consequence for an infraction.

“The Code of Conduct will be enforced at all times. Scholars must adhere to the Code of Conduct when at school on school grounds, participating in a school sponsored activity, and walking to or from, waiting for, or riding on public transportation to and from school or a school-sponsored activity.

“Serious misconduct outside of the school is considered a school disciplinary offense when the misconduct or the scholar’s continued presence at the school has or would have a significant detrimental effect on the school and/or has created or would create a risk of substantial disruption to the work of the school.

————

“Code of Conduct:

“Level 1 Infractions:

“Slouching/failing to be in “Ready to Succeed” position (SPORT or Magic 5 position)

” — Calling out an answer
” — Chewing gum or bringing candy to school
” — Minor disrespectful behavior

“Range of School Responses, Interventions, & Consequences for Level l Infractions

” — Warning/reprimand by school staff
” — Scholar is reminded of appropriate behavior and task at hand
” — Scholar is reminded of what he/she is like at his/her best and of past good behavior

“Scholar is reminded of past poor decisions and provided with productive alternatives/choices that should be made

” — Scholar is given a non-verbal warning
” — Scholar is given a verbal warning

“Level 2 Infractions

” — Committing a Level 1 Infraction after intervention

” — Verbally or physically dishonoring a fellow scholar (which includes, but is not limited to, teasing, name calling, being rude, mocking, etc.)

” — Verbally or physically dishonoring faculty, staff, or other Success Academy community members (which includes, but is not limited to, being rude, disobeying instructions, etc.)

” — Using school equipment (e.g. computers, faxes, phones) without permission

” — Bringing electronic equipment to school of any kind without school authorization (which includes, but is not limited to, cell phones, Game Boys, iPods, headphones, pagers, radios, etc.)

” — Unauthorized possession or use of a cell phone
” — Failing to follow directions
” — Failing to complete work
” — Being off-task
” — Arriving late to school/class and/or violating school attendance policy
” — Violating the Dress Code
” — Being unprepared for class (which includes, but is not limited to, failing to bring a pencil, not completing homework, etc.)

” — Wearing clothing or other items that are unsafe or disruptive to the educational process

” — Failure to obtain signatures for required assignments

” — Disrupting class or educational process in any way at any time (which includes, but is not limited to, making excessive noise in a classroom, failing to participate, refusing to work with partners, etc.)

” — Leaving the recess area during recess without permission from an authorized adult

” — Being in an off-limits location without permission
” — Failing to be in one’s assigned place on school premises
” — Getting out of one’s seat without permission at any point during the school day
” — Going to the bathroom without permission or at undesignated times
” — Making noise in the hallways, in the auditorium, or any general building space without permission

” — Inappropriate noise levels in lunchroom, gym, and during arrival and dismissal

” — Engaging in unsafe behavior, failing to use recess equipment properly, or failing to follow directions during recess

” — Excluding classmates in games/activities during recess
” — Littering on school grounds

————

“Range of School Responses, Interventions, & Consequences for Level 2 Infractions

” — Scholar is reminded of appropriate behavior and task at hand
” — Scholar is given a verbal warning
” — Removal from classroom for ”Time Out” outside of the classroom (administrator’s office)

” — Student-Teacher-Parent conference
” — Student-Parent-Administrator Conference
” — in-school disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)

” — Verbal or written apology to community
” — In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
” — Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
” — Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period or expulsion)

————

“Level 3 Infractions:

” — Committing a Level 2 Infraction after intervention
” — Dishonoring a fellow scholar using profanity, racial slurs, or any foul or discriminatory language

” — Dishonoring a faculty, staff, or other Success Academy community member using profanity, racial slurs, or any foul/discriminatory language

” — Disobeying or defying school staff or any school authority/personnel

” — Using profane, obscene, lewd, abusive, or discriminatory language or gestures in any context (which includes, but is not limited to, slurs based upon race, ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability)

” — Posting or distributing inappropriate materials (which includes, but is not limited to, unauthorized materials, defamatory or libelous materials, or threatening materials)

” — Violating the school’s Technology and Social Media Acceptable Use Policy (which includes, but is not limited to, using the Internet for purposes not related to school/educational purposes or which result in security/privacy violations)

” — Forgery of any kind

” — Lying or providing false or misleading information to school personnel

” — Engaging in any academic dishonesty (which includes, but is not limited to, cheating, plagiarizing, copying another’s work, or colluding/fraudulent collaboration without expressed permission from a school authority)

” — Tampering with school records or school documents/materials by any method

” — Falsely activating a fire alarm or other disaster alarm
” — Making threats of any kind
” — Claiming to possess a weapon
” — Misusing other people’s property
” — Vandalizing school property or property belonging to staff, scholars, or others (which includes, but is not limited to, writing on desks, writing on school books, damaging property, etc.)

” — Stealing or knowingly possessing property belonging to another person without proper authorization

” — Smoking
” — Gambling
” — Throwing any objects

” — Engaging in inappropriate or unwanted physical contact

” — Fighting or engaging in physically aggressive behavior of any kind (which includes, but is not limited to, play fighting, horsing around, shoving, pushing, or any unwanted or aggressive physical contact)

” — Leaving class, school-related activity, or school premises without school authorization

” — Repeatedly failing to attend class, school, or any school activity or event and/or repeatedly violating school attendance policy

————

“Range of School Responses, Interventions,
& Consequences for Level 3 Infractions:

” — Sent to principal/school administrator
” — Loss of classroom/school privileges
” — Additional assignments which require scholar to reflect on behavior in writing or orally (depending on grade)

” — Call home to parents/guardians
” — Removal from classroom or “Time Out” outside of the classroom (administrator’s office)

” — Student-Parent-Administrator Conference

————

” — In-School disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)

” — Verbal or written apology to community
” — Staying after school or coming in on Saturdays
” — In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
” — Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
” — Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period)

” — Expulsion

————

“Level 4 Infractions:

” — Committing a Level 3 Infraction after intervention
” — Repeated in-school and/or out-of-school suspensions
” — Exhibiting blatant and repeated disrespect for school code, policies, community, or culture

” — Engaging in gang-related behavior (which includes, but is not limited to, wearing gang apparel, making gestures, or signs)

” — Destroying or attempting to destroy school property
” — Engaging in intimidation, bullying, harassment, coercion, or extortion or threatening violence, injury, or harm to others (empty or real) or stalking or seeking to coerce

” — Engaging in behavior that creates a substantial risk of or results in injury/assault against any member of the school community

” — Engaging in sexual, racial, or any other type of harassment
” — Possessing, transferring, or using drugs, alcohol, or controlled substances
” — Participating in an incident of group violence
” — Possessing a weapon
” — Charged with or convicted of a felony

“Range of School Responses, Interventions, & Consequences for Level 4 Infractions

” — Sent to principal/school administrator
” — Loss of classroom/school privileges

” — Additional assignments that require scholar to reflect on behavior in writing or orally (depending on grade)

” — Call home to parents/guardians

” — Removal from classroom or “Time Out” outside of the classroom (administrator’s office)

” — Student-Parent-Administrator Conference

” — In-school disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)

” — Verbal or written apology to community
” — Staying after school or coming in on Saturdays
” — In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
” — Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)

” — Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period)

” — Expulsion”

Reply
- AlwaysLearning says:
  
  November 3, 2015 at 6:09 am
  
  Are these infractions posted in every classroom? How long does it take for students to learn all the rules? Is this what a 21st century classroom or school should looked like? Is this an example of different and innovative teaching methods that charters are suppose to demonstrate?
  
  Reply