Reader Jack Covey watched Eva Moskowitz’s ED talk at Governor Cuomo’s Camp Philos retreat:
“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.)”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Back before Moskowitz became Moskowitz, she tried her hand at a popular press book:
The basic message is that Eva Moskowitz holds most of the rest of us in utter contempt.
As I said below, “Oy, vey.”
I agree with you, Daniel. Eva Moskowitz seems to believe that she is the “world’s greatest expert on absolutely everything.”
And, pardon the crudity, but that the sun shines out of her @ss.
What an enormous ego this woman must have.
I haven’t seen a post about this yet but did anyone read this Michael J. Petrilli op ed? Basically, it says “forget about how Eva Moskowitz has been lying about what she has been doing all these years, because what is important is that charters educate the poor “strivers” from failing schools” !!!
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/michael-petrilli-charter-schools-aren-article-1.2418153
The bankruptcy of these people’s ethics is appalling. “Yes, this woman’s claims have justified cuts to public schools budgets all over the country and of course we all believed her when she claimed her results proved that large class size didn’t matter but let’s give her a pass because she is educating the strivers who could have easily been educated in any public school willing to kick out any child who didn’t meet standards.”
When charter schools are reduced to justifying their existence by the fact that they can kick out the kids who aren’t the strivers, they have completely lost their way. Even people like Mr. Petrilli, who I assume truly believes he is helping poor children, have completely rationalized the great harm they have done to poor children in this country. I realize that people like Mr. Petrilli believe if they blow up the public education system and just replace it with privately run charters it will all be fine. I can only assume their own hubris makes them unwilling to acknowledge the harm their years and years of dishonesty has wrought. And no, Mr. Petrilli, the fact that a small number of striving low-income students are helped at the expense of letting the majority of kids who are more difficult to educate rot — I’m sorry, but that is not acceptable. Especially when the operators of his beloved charters are getting rich while “doing good”.
If those reformers weren’t so dishonest, we could have had a discussion about opening co-located public schools for “strivers” — like honors programs — that were completely separate from the “non-strivers” in every public school (or in a separate location). The pro-charter folks’ lies — and that’s what they were, lies — that they were getting “better” results with the same at-risk kids found in failing public schools led to harm they will never acknowledge. I truly do not know how they rationalize it. I suppose it’s all about helping a few at the expense of the many, but why can’t we try to help ALL kids? The choice that the “reformers” offer is so utterly bankrupt.
We need to stop concerning ourselves with what these frauds “believe,” and focus on stopping their sinister agenda.
All so-called education reformers lie about everything; many of them, like the worst liars, also lie to themselves.
Their “beliefs” are meaningless, tightly woven in as they are with their financial and political interests; what should solely concern us is their behavior, how to mitigate it, neutralize it and eventually override it.
Agree with both NYC parent and Fiorillo.
The background resembles a web–there is “Evita,” standing in a web of her own deceit.
Which will (hopefully, very soon) come back to haunt her & bring her down.
Quite a fitting story for Halloween.
She is a cold, calculating, greedy, entitled …….b word.
She sees “scholars” as “dollars” – and look at that, it rhymes. Nothing more.
She would never want her children to have been students at Succe$$ Academy; not in a million years.
Just yesterday while walking to lunch, for fun I put my hands in my pockets — now were I to fall, I’d be hard pressed to break my fall without my arms/hands. Also, I thought…let me walk like a scholar with my hands joined behind my back…and I found it almost impossible at my advanced age; I guess scholars are more agile at assuming the position of prisoner.
NYC Educator had a similar comment… saying that he, and dog owners in general, treat their pets better than Eva treats her students:
http://nyceducator.com/2015/10/the-moskowitz-anomoly.html
NYC EDUCATOR: “Eva’s test scores are no miracle. They’re a product of the drill and kill method she favors that values test scores over children. How else do you explain children soiling themselves as a matter of course under the abusive leadership she fosters and defends?
“In a public school, this would be considered child abuse. If you didn’t allow a child to go to the bathroom, and that child soiled herself, you’d be guilty of corporal punishment under CR A-420.
“When my dog asks to go out, I jump up and take him. Therefore, I treat my dog better than Moskowitz treats the children under her care.”
….”think about NOT treating children AS children…..”
Oy, vey, what an incredibly stupid thing to say, and it’s clear that “Evita” Moskowitz has no idea whatsoever about child development, of the importance of play in the development of children (and yes, Eva, “play” is one of the important ways that children learn), of a whole lot regarding the physical, mental, and emotional parameters of developing children.
This amounts to emotional child abuse.
Eva, children are not mere cogs in your misguided “wheel.”
I know Eva will call me out for this, and say that I’m just a unionized slacker teacher, but the day I have to have my infected spleen surgically removed, I’m taking the day off. Maybe two.
Sorry Pauline P. – only one day off per spleen if you’re really motivated to get a four on the test.
As if getting a four on a test is an achievement. Her single focus on test scores tells you all you need to know …Eva is one sick self-absorbed, egotistical pariah.
That poor little girl! I mean, really!!! If I were the adult in charge of this situation, I wouldn’t LET her take the damn test, just as I wouldn’t let a football player with a head injury back into the game even though he insists the team needs him. Being an adult is supposed to mean knowing when to tell a sick kid to go back to bed.
Also, and I may be picking nits here, Eva pronounces Sidney’s last name “McLeod” in the following manner … /mik KLOYD/.
Eva may be right here, and this girl and her family did, in fact, choose an anomalous pronunciation for their surname. Eva’s more familiar with her than I, after all.
It’s just that I’ve never heard it pronounced that way. I’ve always heard it as … /mik KLOWD/ … with the /ow/ sound in “cow”, as in the African-American historical figure
“Mary McLeod ( /mik KLOWD/ ) Bethune.”
… or, for you classic TV fans, Dennis Weaver’s cowboy detective.
If she is, in fact, saying it wrong, that’s quite a mistake.
Wait… even Youtube backs me on this:
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, that such a grotesque spectacle will have any positive effect on the Success Academy image?
Embedded in this non-apology apology is Eva’s simultaneous fabrication of victimhood — a traitor stabbed us in the back and leaked this to our enemies, doncha know?:
( 01:11 – 01:31)
( 01:11 – 01:31)
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 exactly BECAUSE he/she believed that the “Got-to-Go List” was precisely reflective of, and consistent with Success Academy policies. He or she was probably sick of hearing and reading Eva dismissing all 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 proof! 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.
Yet Eva, now that both the public and you have the proof—that you previously 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;
( 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 can send my own child (i.e. to do so, he must implement a ‘Got-to-Go’ list /policy ).”
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 … with her gutless attempt to distance herself from this… scapegoating — but alas, not firing — rogue agents like Principal Brown.
Does a typical Success Academy principal or other official possess the autonomy to 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 — all from different Success Academy teachers, independent of each other — 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 (reluctantly) see them in the same grade again next year (i.e. because of being held back, JACK) because they were neither smart, nor hard- working, and hopefully would not be their student again (next year) — (and teachers 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.”
Is this guy serious? Did they give him glycerin to create tears and pepper spray to choke on? Boo hoo. Waaaaaaah. (Cut to Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart or one of those thieving, lying, call-girl getting evangelists – I have SINNED. )
What a moron.
If I had to have had a convo with Evita, I’d be crying too.
The latest, a TV news segment, has parents of the “Got-to-Go List” kids reacting to the Jimmy-Swaggart-like press conference (ABOVE).
They’re not buying it:
PARENT: “There’s other ways to get it done without forcing children to be robots.”
Here’s more:
———————————-
“Literally, the children would have to sit there and they’re forced to just stare at their teacher while the teacher is reading,” Monique Jeffrey said. “If they put their hands on their head, it’s a correction. They get reprimanded,” she told PIX11 News. “It’s a problem.”
She withdrew her son, Brendin, she said, after being called almost daily by Success Academy Fort Greene regarding what it considered behavioral issues.
“He would break down basically because he didn’t understand what he was doing wrong,” said Jeffrey.
She said that even though Brendin ended up significantly improving his reading and math scores at Success Academy Fort Greene, she has since transferred him to another charter school, where he is doing even better.”
It is very interesting that not a single one of her Success Academy eight grade scholars did well enough on the tests to be admitted to any of NYC elite public high schools.. Also her graduating class of 32 was less than half of the 72 originally enrolled as first graders.
All of this is not exactly new news. Check out SouthBronxTeacher’s piece from two years ago:
http://www.southbronxschool.com/2015/03/eva-moskowitz-admits-to-exclusivity.html
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.
Finally, there’s tape recordings confirming it:
——————-
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.”
Removal of a spleen is a major medical procedure — if this claim is true, the student must’ve taken the common core test from her hospital bed….is that allowed ?
When I had mine removed, I was in the hospital for five days (and no complications, I’m pretty healthy and strong, etc.) Just sayin…
Wimp!
That last comment was totally facetious.
Atrocious.
Did she not consider that MAYBE some decisions children shouldn’t make?
What this seems to state is this girl had so much self worth conditioned into her about how the test would define her as a good person, that she should be getting counseling, not applause.
Taking a test should not be a courageous act – this girl should have felt access to other ways that she could make her elders proud.
Thank you, Jack Covey, Curmudgeon, and Diane. That was a very scary Eva Monster flick. I’m reeling, and I don’t even believe in Eva Monsters. Happy Halloween to you too!
If you can tolerate watching the video long enough to get to 5:45, you’ll get Eva’s take on merit pay, or performance bonuses – double or triple recess if you are a tutor and your student gets a four on the exam. Sadly, she seems serious. I’m curious as to how the UFT might react to this revelation!
And at 6:27, she repeats “Don’t treat children as children.” I would love to hear comments from experts in child and brain development and psychologists on the merits and/or dangers of her beliefs, which seem neither supported by evidence nor based on reality.
It’s all about the test, the test, the test …
And actually, it’s only about one particular test. When you drill and kill for a test, that renders the results meaningless. It’s the educational equivalent of steroids — you get a positive “result” in the short run, but do great harm in the long run.
As proof, when Eva’s heavily-creamed first class (only 31 out of 71 made it all the way to finish 8th Grade) of kids had to take a different test, the one required to obtain passage to exclusive high schools, they all bombed it.
Even for the kids who survive, the education sucks.
I wonder if it is even 31 out of 71. Even back then they allowed new students in for 2nd grade, and possibly at the beginning of 3rd. So it is even possible some of those were children who won a lottery for an older grade and were “allowed” to join their grade after being tested.
I really wish a reporter could get the breakdown of the July 2015 IBO report on charters. They give aggregate information of how many of the starting cohorts in Kindergarten disappeared over the years. It is annoying to hear Eva Moskowitz keep quoting WNYC reporter Beth Fertig, who 3 years ago was given a single year’s data in which the “average” students who left was only 10% each year. (Although one HSA school had 15% leaving that year). But the IBO tracked what happened to the starting K class and it would be fascinating to see if most of them stayed over the years or not. The information as out there and readily available — I have no idea why the IBO only aggregated the attrition rates of 52 charters instead of listing each one separately. They obviously had to have each charter school’s attrition rate to get that “average” number.
“When you drill and kill for a test, that renders the results meaningless. . . ”
ALL standardized test results are MEANINGLESS even before drill and kill training sessions. The results are COMPLETELY INVALID or as Noel Wilson states “vain and illusory”. To understand why the results are COMPLETELY INVALID I suggest all read and comprehend Wilson’s never refuted nor rebutted “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine.
1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
My concern with S.A. is that it now has preschools and is refusing to sign a contract with the city. I used to joke, “Next thing you know they will have no-excuses charter preschools.” Sadly, I was proven right. One dreads what a SA preschool would be like.
GE2L2L’s quotes the CEO as saying, “Don’t treat children as children.” But children are children for a reason. They are not short adults simply growing in height and accumulating facts and skills as the years go on. They are children because childhood matters in a specific way.
it is a protected time of life in which the child gets to try on life without all the pitfalls of life. Something like the pretend area in preschools. I am not an anthropologist, but I cannot think of any society that does not protect children in some way.
Human childhood lasts longer than that of any other mammal because the complexity of being human requires a period of development in which all aspects of being a person need to be nourished; the social, the personal, the intellectual, the physical.
If we stop treating children as children, we will do so at our peril.
Why was the principal of her school even there? Aside from dropping off flowers, there is absolutely no reason for the principal of a school to visit a student when that student’s spleen is being removed. The fact that a standardized test was even discussed in their interaction is beyond disgusting. Eva Moskowitz should be ashamed of herself for touting this as an example of “success”.
I have no problem with the principal (especially of a small school) going to give his/her regards to the student. As a teacher I started a new year with one of my students in the hospital being treated for cancer at the same time my son was having surgery for Chiari Malformation. I went to introduce myself to the student and her folks. They very much appreciated the gesture.
Why was the principal of her school even there? That child was having her spleen removed. There is no reason for the principal to “drop by” other than to drop off flowers. The fact that a standardized test, or any other test for that matter, was even discussed is beyond disgusting. What is wrong with Eva Moskowitz? Who brags about this a success? The test couldn’t wait?!?!
Anyone else wondering whether Evita got Sidney’s parents’ permission before talking all about her medical issues in front of the reformistas at Camp Philos?
At the top of the thread, Zorba points out: “Eva Moskowitz seems to believe that she is the ‘world’s greatest expert on absolutely everything.’ ”
No kidding.
When the year started and there were horror stories about the teaching shortage from all over the country — Nevada (particularly Las Vegas), Kansas, Indiana, Florida. etc. —
Eva put out an article, where first, she callously dismissed all this “teacher shortage crisis” talk as “a lot of hand-wringing.”
Second, she says the real issue is that United States teachers—and university-based teacher training—overwhelmingly suck because of teachers unions, and also because so many people use poverty and family distress as “excuses”.
Third, she proposes herself and her charter schools’ training system as the solution.
https://www.the74million.org/article/eva-moskowitz-student-performance-is-a-mirror
Eva dismisses the distress expressed by districts who started
the year short hundreds of teachers (or like Las Vegas,
over 1,000) just a lot of “hand-wringing”. Tell that
to the parents upset that their kids, as a result, are being
taught in giant classes, or being taught by untrained office
temps who have never taught a day in their lives.
Instead, she says we should focus on the vast majority
of current lousy teachers, and the institutions who trained
them, or FAILED TO train them to be effective in the classroom.
——————————————
EVA MOSKOWITZ:
“It’s easy to blame the kids – poverty, single-parent families, etc. – but school isn’t really about the children, it’s about the adults, and the adults in our classrooms aren’t getting the job done. No wonder there’s a backlash against the Common Core and standardized tests: They tell the ugly truth about the quality of our schools, and the teachers and unions don’t want to hear it.”
——————————————
So says the woman who has never taught a day in her life.
So who’s got the solution?
Why Eva does, of course. Her “model” should be universally adopted:
——————————————
EVA MOSKOWITZ:
“If we want to truly reform education in the United States, we must fundamentally reform how we train America’s teachers. Innovative approaches like those employed by small organizations such as Success Academy to create better teacher training programs should be viewed as a model for achieving this important goal.
‘We all know that strong teachers make a tremendous difference – maybe the greatest difference – in educational outcomes for children. As a country, we need to abandon the old, failed methods and instead foster programs that are improving teacher preparation and producing dramatic gains for children.”
——————————————
Hmmm…. Eva always says that parents will “vote with their feet” and leave lousy public schools for her charters.
Well you know who else can “vote with their feet”? Teachers at Eva’s schools. The website GlassDoor included comments from dozens former teachers who fled her schools:
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2014/08/citizen-jacks-compendium-of-teacher.html
When it happens at Eva’s schools, she lashes out at those fleeing teachers, “This is not a gig! By leaving, you’re behaving unethically!”
http://www.wnyc.org/story/302768-high-teacher-turnover-at-a-success-network-school/
————————————————————-
“High Teacher Turnover at a Success Network School
“Oct 19, 2011 · by Anna Phillips
“More than a third of the staff members at a Harlem charter school run by the Success Charter Network have left the school within the last several months, challenging an organization that prides itself on the training and support it offers its teachers.
“The unusually high turnover at Harlem Success Academy 3 and the network-wide issue of teachers quitting mid-year led the founder and chief executive of the Success Charter Network, Eva S. Moskowitz, to express concern in an October newsletter.
“This is not a ‘gig’ ” she wrote, informing staff members that by breaking their commitment to the schools and families midyear, they were acting unethically.
“At Harlem Success Academy 3, 22 of the school’s 59 administrators, teachers and classroom aides left between the end of the last school year and the beginning of this one, according to the school’s records. Some took jobs at other schools, some moved to new cities and some said they quit out of frustration with the school’s tightly regulated environment.”
————————————-
Eva accusing others of “behaving unethically.” The definition of irony.
I suspect that if a teacher in a public school were to treat students the way they are treated in the SA schools, they would be reprimanded, disciplined, and in all likelihood, dismissed for their inappropriate, ineffective, destructive, and abusive treatment of yes, children.
Maria’s last sentence should be a warning that bears repeating.
Another thing that “Glass Door” offers transparency on is salaries and hours worked, including those of Success Academy’s teachers and interns:
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Success-Academy-Charter-Schools-Salaries-E381408.htm?utm_source=watcher&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=watch-n&utm_content=wat-n-salary
Each school’s Lead Teacher gets: $62,547 annual salary.
The rest of each schools teachers each get: $48,803 annual salary.
(and keep in mind that Eva has them there from a “minimum” of “7 AM to 5 PM”, or longer, with no union contract to restrain her)
The interns get a part-time salary of $10.69/hr/
Try living in Manhattan or in one of the five NYC boroughs on salaries like that.
Meanwhile, Eva brings home a whopping $600,000 / year.
To back up my point about the hours, go to this link:
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Success-Academy-Charter-Schools-Reviews-E381408.htm?utm_source=watcher&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=watch-n&utm_content=wat-n-review
Read the first teacher’s “Cons” about working at Success Academy
—————————-
“Cons
“There are indeed long hours (7 AM to 5 PM is a minimum daily schedule if you are working in an SA school). You must also be willing to seek out and accept feedback, which many people (especially those right out of college) are not always willing to do.”
Not treat children as children? Well, Eva, they ARE children. Try, just try, thinking of the children as human beings rather than props in your disturbing vision of profit driven education.
Evita’s words and deeds lead one to conclude that she has some kind of messianic complex; the cult of St. Eva. Her beliefs are not based on research; they are just what she thinks. That she is in charge of the education of some 9000 kids is tantamount to putting Jim Jones in charge. The phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” had it’s origins in the horror show of Guyana.
Too bad it’s not just a scary Hallowe’en story.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/drinking-the-kool-aid-a-survivor-remembers-jim-jones/248723/
It’s not just 9000 kids. She’s hugely influential. She speaks to Congress, governors- she’s “an unofficial national spokesperson for the charter school movement”:
“Moskowitz made headlines earlier this year during a battle with City Hall over space for three of her schools. Now, she is an increasingly familiar presence outside of New York City and is quickly becoming an unofficial national spokeswoman for the charter school movement.
In addition to her appearance before Congress on Tuesday, Moskowitz was recently awarded a spot in the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ Hall of Fame.
She was also selected as a keynote speaker on education reform, along with Washington, D.C. chancellor Kaya Henderson, at a conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, earlier this month for some powerful business leaders and politicians. She spoke before an audience that included New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who told the crowd charter school supporters would have to outspend teachers’ unions in order to defeat them. ”
These unelected ed reformers have way too much power in government, which is the fault of people in government. Our electeds need to get a grip and stop behaving like lemmings.
Success Academy should not be a model for every school in the country and that they are even listening to this person espousing this plan is insane.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/07/8549878/moskowitz-success-academy-could-be-national-model
Eva Moskowitz is a modern day slave holder and trader, and she whips her prize possessions into submission with trickery, brainwashing, and propaganda.
At her $500+ thousand dollar annual salary, it’s no wonder that she believes her own truths while lying parasitically to others.
She is a parasite and her students and their families are the unwitting hosts.
The comptroller recently told her that if she does not agree to be audited, then she will not receive public funds. She brazenly refused to comply, and it remains to be seen if she will raise a law suit or go to her sugar daddy, Andrew Cuomo, for help.
This woman is shameless, self absorbed, and among the biggest narcissists ever there was in the field of education. I am waiting for a house to fall on her or for someone to douse her with water.
Eva may not believe in treating children like children, but I believe one needs to treat Eva like a child. She is completely off her leash, eating too much candy, going to bed late, and throwing temper tantrums when she does not get her way.
Someone ought to show this child come tough love because the stickers and behavioral management chart are not working any more . . .
Cx:
. . . some tough love . . .
The Daily Free Press offers a thoughtful editorial on this situation:
http://dailyfreepress.com/2015/10/30/editorial-success-academys-got-to-go-misses-the-point-of-education-discipline/
————————————
DAILY FREE PRESS Editorial:
EDITORIAL: Success Academy’s “Got to Go” misses the point of education, discipline
Written by Editors·
October 30, 2015 2:10 am
– – – – – – – – –
The Success Academy charter school system in New York has often been questioned for their practices of supposedly “weeding out” problematic students who they would like to see leave the program. Now, The New York Times has found files and completed interviews with current and former Success employees that might prove the suspicions true.
According to the Times, the system is known for both its “remarkable accomplishments” and its exacting of “behavior rules.” Indeed, “even the youngest pupils are expected to sit with their backs straight, their hands clasped and their eyes on the teacher, a posture that the network believes helps children pay attention,” the Times reported. “Good behavior and effort are rewarded with candy and prizes, while infractions and shoddy work are penalized with reprimands, loss of recess time, extra assignments and in some cases suspensions, as early as kindergarten.” The oldest students at the schools are in the third grade.
Now, one branch of the school in Brooklyn is allegedly guilty of creating a “Got to Go” list comprised of the names of 16 students that the administration wished to have weeded out of the program. The school is also said to avoid teaching students with special needs, according to the Times.
Parents whose children attend the Success Academy have long questioned the system’s practices, the Times reported. Multiple mothers report having had to pick up their children from school more times than they can even count. One student’s mother immediately withdrew her from the school when the principle, Candido Brown, said that he would have to call 911 if her daughter “continued to do things that were defiant and unsafe — including, he said, pushing or kicking, moving chairs or tables, or refusing to go to another classroom.”
Another mother was concerned that her son was on the list, even though he “doesn’t hit kids … he doesn’t scream, he just talks to much.” In essence, the parents believe that their lives are being uprooted with calls and meetings so that they will be forced to withdraw their children from the school. There are even reports that re-enrollment forms for the school weren’t properly distributed to those parents whose children the school wished to weed out.
The academy’s response? The spokesperson, Ann Powell, told the Times that what the parents see as weeding out is actually the school’s effort to “find the right environment” for the students. That environment simply exists outside the schools program.
Perhaps what is most concerning about the system’s tactics is the form of discipline used on these young children. All of the students are under 10 — there is no reason the staff can’t sit down with a so-called “problem child,” talk with them and find the root of the problem. But chastising them and sending them home for the day simply doesn’t cut it. Instead of addressing problems, the staff is skirting them and focusing on the kids they favor. But all of these children deserve to be taught that they matter and that they are important.
It seems that these practices can only hurt the students in the long run. This “shut up and do what you’re told” mentality breeds kids who don’t speak up for themselves, and will continue to remain silent even when the real world calls for noise. Part of the reason school is so important at such a young age is for socialization. But instead of being taught to make friends, share colored pencils and say please and thank you, these kids are told to sit up straight, fold their hands and keep their mouths shut.
We aren’t experts, as some of these staff members probably are. But we do know that being told to stay quiet and stand tall doesn’t work for everyone. We can’t expect these students to be such high-achieving prodigies under the age of 10. Five-year-olds play and scream, regardless of whether or not we tell them to.
This whole Success Academy system seems like a waste of government funds. “Success” doesn’t lie in the ability to sit up straight while being talked down to — it lies in one’s ambition. And instead of being taught to work hard for what they want, these kids are told their outbursts are simply characteristic of unsuccessful human beings.
And who doesn’t love to have a good outburst once in a while? We all have our moments. Maybe these principals should be sent home every time they don’t want to sit up straight for six hours, too.
Perhaps the academy’s desires lie in preparing kids to go through higher education. But each of us who have been through or learned about the American education system realize that reforms must be made. Therefore, training an elementary-aged child to go through the current education system is flawed in itself.
Instead of devoting their time to these students who need them most, the administration in this system is more focused on waiting for kids to fail. Or, seemingly, causing turmoil in their parents’ lives so that they are forced to quit. But the school really can’t come out and say that they never had plans to use this list. Why would anyone write it if they didn’t have plans to edge these students out? The namesake of the list says it all.
Of course discipline must be instilled, but this form of discipline not only alienates students who may need more help than others, but it also doesn’t do any good for the students who are already so well disciplined. Ultimately, we support providing students with responsibility, but that responsibility should be aimed at lifting them up and providing them with the chance to rise to the occasion.
Educators should focus on giving students opportunity and room enough to grow. One becomes disciplined through self-motivation, and these kids aren’t even given an opportunity to develop this motivation past 5-years-old. The goal should be to unite these kids and achieve a certain level of discipline for all of them, rather than just the select few who come out of the womb with perfectly straightened spines.
We realize that this view sounds quite utilitarian. But according to the Times, charter schools in New York admit children by lottery. “Similar to a traditional public school,” the article reads, “a charter school must provide a seat to a child who has enrolled unless the student withdraws, is expelled, turns 21 or moves out of the state.”
This statement makes clear that the school is responsible for each and every student who choses to attend and walks through those front doors every day, regardless of his or her ability to comprehend their form of discipline. Even students with special needs must be attended to. This isn’t some swanky boarding school that parents are paying thousands of dollars for their children to attend — it’s a publicly funded system that is lawfully required to accept all children.
And by the looks of it, this school is doing the exact opposite of what is required of them.
The Daily Free Press is Boston College’s newspaper. Bravo to these young people.
Yes, and I am proud to have graduated from Boston College’s Lynch School of Education (Special Eduction) many years ago. Good for them!
At around 6:24 in, Moskowitz reinteretad, “My message is don’t treat children like children.”
This grossly overpaid non-educator is either ignorant of or values her personal opinion more than a very large body of scientific research in all areas of child development, such as in the physical, cognitive, social and emotional domains, including brain research, which demonstrates that children are not just little adults (Google that) and they should not be treated as if they were. No wonder Moskowitz refused to sign the agreement to comply with the regulations for PreK, since such regs are typically based on principles of child development.
Based on what a number of candid SA teachers have said, Moskowitz also believes in not treating adults as adults.
cx: Whoa, that should have been “Moskowitz reiterated” not the gobbledygook that appeared
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 😉 )
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”
BELOW is a great essay about these recent developments by Daniel Katz:
EXCERPT:
DANIEL KATZ:
On October 12th, PBS Newshour aired a story by retiring veteran education reporter, John Merrow, detailing the use of repeated suspensions on children as young as 5 years old within the Success Academy network and accusations that Moskowitz uses her 65 infraction long discipline policy to repeatedly suspend students she does not wish to educate until parents withdraw them from school:
The piece, which includes lengthy segments of Moskowitz looking uncomfortable while claiming her schools don’t suspend students for many of the very minor infractions that are listed as suspension worthy (Mr. Merrow includes the entire disciplinary code, verbatim, on his personal blog), also included material from a mother and son who were willing to talk on camera about some of the incidents that led to his repeated suspensions from a Success Academy. While those incidents were quite minor, his mother also speaks about her son having outbursts, allowing a reasonable viewer can infer that his full range of behavior was broader than discussed on camera, and the mother says her son was suspended in Kindergarten for losing his temper. The mother and son take up a grand total of one minute and 12 seconds in the over nine minute long story. Although the story says their names, I am not going to do so for reasons that should be evident next.
Eva Moskowitz was not happy.
In a lengthy and accusatory letter to PBS that she posted to Success Academy’s website (and to which I refuse to link), she demanded an apology from PBS, disputed Mr. Merrow’s factual findings, and was especially incensed about the inclusion of material from the mother and son who were willing to go on camera. She released a series of a email communications where she claimed Mr. Merrow misled her (although to my reading they also seem to indicate that she wanted practical editorial control over the story), and then she did something that any ethical educator should find completely unthinkable: she detailed specific incidents from the young man’s disciplinary record, including verbatim text of email communications from teachers about particular events. PBS Newshour responded with a clarification that acknowledges the story should have allowed Moskowitz an opportunity to respond on camera to the allegations but that also defended the accuracy of Mr. Merrow’s piece overall.
The reason that I refuse to link to the Success Academy letter or to name the mother and son in this piece is because of a federal law that should have limited Moskowitz’s response to the Newshour segment. The Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) forbids schools and school officials from releasing education records to anyone without prior approval from a parent or a student (if that student is over 18). While I am not bound by FERPA in this matter, as a matter of ethics, I find it appalling that Moskowitz would respond to the situation by publicly releasing information on a child, now ten years old. While the mother and son did go on camera to discuss some of his disciplinary problems at Success Academy, they did not approve of the release of his full disciplinary record and FERPA is written in such a way that such express permission must be granted. Even if one is inclined to think that Merrow did not play fair in his story, the only fully legal response from Moskowitz, and the only one Mr. Merrow could have aired, would be: “We cannot discuss his whole record without permission, but suffice to say, there was more going on than his mother said.” It is also the only moral response, but Moskowitz has always had a scorched earth approach when it comes to her reputation.
Moskowitz was sent a cease and desist letter demanding the letter be taken down from the school web site and disputing a number of facts as portrayed in it. In response, Success Academy put another letter on its website, claiming a “First Amendment” right to respond as they did, saying: “Success Academy had a constitutional right to speak publicly to set the record straight about the reasons that your son received suspensions.” This interpretation is false as FERPA does not prevent them from responding, but it absolutely limits the legal content of that response. As of October 30th, the Federal Department of Education has been sent a formal request to intervene in the case on the grounds of Moskowitz’s violation of FERPA and refusal to remedy the situation.
Moskowitz’s bad month was not over, believe it or not.
On October 29th, The New York Times ran a blockbuster story that the principal of Success Academy in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, Candido Brown, kept a list of 16 students entitled “Got to Go,” meaning they were students he wanted to leave the school due to their difficulties in adjusting to the strict disciplinary policies. Kate Taylor’s story confirms that the mother of one student on the list was actually told that Mr. Brown would have to call 911 if her daughter, who was six years old at the time, continued to defy rules. Nine students on the list withdrew from the Fort Greene Success Academy, parents reported their lives disrupted by constant calls to pick up their children early, and four of the parents told the Times they were directly told they should seek another school. While the “got to go” list may have been restricted to Principal Brown’s school, other sources reported similar behavior at other schools in the network. One principal told employees not to automatically send re-enrollment paperwork to certain families, and another source described a network attorney describing the withdrawal of a particular student “a big win” for the school. Other sources described network staff and leaders “explicitly talked about suspending students or calling parents into frequent meetings as ways to force parents to fall in line or prompt them to withdraw their children.”
Moskowitz quickly threw together a press conference on October 30th with many of her network’s principals standing behind her and denied that Principal Brown was following Success Academy policy. She affirmed her support for the tough disciplinary practices of her schools but insisted they were about having high standards and denied any intention to use them to drive away undesired students. In an interesting twist, Moskowitz declared that, despite advice from others, she would not fire Principal Brown, asserting “at Success we simply don’t believe in throwing people on the trash heap for the sake of public relations.” (That fate after all, is reserved for Kindergarten children) Principal Brown then took the podium in tears and took full responsibility for the “got to go” list, saying “I was not advised by my organization to put children on the list. I was not advised by my organization to push children out of my school.” Moskowitz, true to form, sent an email to staffers on the 30th where she, again, accused the media of having “conspiracy theories” about Success Academy – because when faced with the slow unraveling of your organizational mythology, the best thing to do is harp about how outsiders are out to get you.
It is, honestly, puzzling that Success Academy would continue to go through this charade trying to convince people that they do not force students out as policy – given that in 2010, they pretty much admitted it in the open in a lengthy portrait of the growing network in New York Magazine. Consider this from the last section of the article:
At Harlem Success, disability is a dirty word. “I’m not a big believer in special ed,” 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.”
…. “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.
So we’ve known this since at least 2010. Eva Moskowitz does not believe in serving children with special needs as required by federal law, and the network openly scoffs at individualized education plans, blaming them on bad parenting. Her schools don’t provide needed resources and counseling, favoring repeated suspensions and harassing parents until they leave. Moskowitz, referencing special needs children, directly told teachers that the school is “not a social service agency.”
But we’re supposed to believe Principal Brown came up with his “got to go” list all on his own.
And just to make the month complete: Moskowitz is heading for another legal showdown. This time, it is over her insistence that the city of New York give her money allocated for pre-Kindergarten providers but not require her to sign the city contract that every other provider, including other charter schools, has signed. Success Academy already has 72 pre-K students, and the network would be eligible for $10,000 per student in funding, but city Comptroller Scott Stringer declared that Moskowitz cannot decline the contract that every one of the other 277 approved pre-K providers has already signed. This is true to form for Moskowitz who has won other legal fights to prevent any state or city authority from oversight over how she spends the public money she receives. Given how other charter providers have already signed the same contract, some grudgingly, this fight seems more geared towards maintaining her special status as the charter network entirely above public accountability of any sort than over much else.
I suspect that Moskowitz will bounce back from this month. After all, she still has Governor Cuomo in her hip pocket (although he isn’t winning many popularity contests himself). More importantly, she still has her billionaire backed political machine designed to bend public opinion and politicians to her cause, and there is no indication that they are going anywhere. She is still the driving force behind the largest charter network in the city, and her goal of 100 schools is still probably attainable. However, in a very real way, I suspect one thing is changing permanently.
Moskowitz is losing total control of her situation.
Success Academy is run in a very particular way. It has a dynamic, forceful, and very visible personality at the top of the organization. The policies, tone, and demeanor of the organization flow entirely from that person who exerts an extraordinary level of control of the operation right down to the classroom. There is a very narrow band of acceptable behaviors and attitudes. Teachers who embody those behaviors and attitudes can rise very quickly with some becoming school principals in their mid-20s, and students who do similarly well are rewarded with toys and other goodies. Those who do not thrive are subjected to rigorous and frequent “corrections” that either mold them into proper form or convince them to leave. The network has an arguably paranoid attitude towards “outsiders,” frequently declaring to themselves that figures in the press and public are out to get them because they have cracked the code and are disruptors of the status quo. Those who leave and speak out about the network’s inside information are viciously attacked.
But Success Academy has grown far too large to keep the lid on everything now. Moskowitz enrolls 11,000 students in 34 schools. She has around 1000 teachers and staff. With such numbers and given their policies, there will likely be 1000s of former “scholars” and 100s of former teachers in short order, and all of them are not going to be intimidated into silence about what they saw while there. The simple fact is that Moskowitz absolutely cannot keep total control over what people say and know anymore, and it is her own policies of driving away students she does not want and burning out teachers that has put her in this position. So even if she fully recovers from this month, I think it is likely we will see many more months like this.
The next couple of years will be interesting.
I am waiting for the press to start taking a close look at the SUNY Charter Institute. They have known about these practices for years (as noted above) and have adamantly refused to do even the smallest amount of oversight. The video of their meeting last October, when they granted another 10 or 12 charters to Success Academy, was laughable and sad. I’m sure they saw the press conference and said “great, she says it’s a single incident so let’s give her another 10 charters!” But it’s time for a real investigation to look at SUNY because they are the ONLY thing preventing EVERY charter school from weeding out struggling kids to get the test scores that seems to be all that SUNY cares about. And if all they care about is results and test scores, and attrition is never even looked at, then they have set up a terrible motivation for charter schools to make kids they don’t want feel misery until they leave. I hope they are embarrassed publicly in the near future by a real investigative piece.
I just found John Merrow’s article about how bad charters are ruining the “brand” or reputation of charter schools in general. He includes responses from the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, and the leaders of major charter school chains:
————
DAMAGING THE CHARTER SCHOOL BRAND
October 27, 2015
by John Merrow
– – – – – – – – – – – –
DAMAGING THE BRAND
Charter schools and their networks desperately need a HALL OF SHAME. What’s more, the push to create it should be coming from the charter school community.
I have been observing what is called the ‘charter school movement’ from Day One, a historic meeting at the headwaters of the Mississippi River in 1988 that I moderated. Back then, the dream was that every district would open at least one ‘chartered school,’ where enrollment and employment would be voluntary and where new ideas could be field-tested. Successes and failures would be shared, and the entire education system would benefit.
That naive optimism would be laughable if it were not for the harm that has befallen many students and the millions taken from public treasuries by some charter school operators (regardless of whether their schools are ‘for-profit’ or ‘non-profit).’
As I see it, the term is in danger of becoming toxic, and I think the blame falls squarely on the leadership in the charter school movement, and on politicians who are indifferent to the needs of children but responsive to constituents motivated by ideology or greed.
Of course, the movement has a HALL OF FAME, to pat each other on the back and share success stories, so why not establish a HALL OF SHAME?
Who’s ripping off the system? Who belongs on a Charter School HALL OF SHAME? Here’s a smattering of stories from a few states.
Ohio: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/2015/08/10/dollars-details-slow-ohio-charter-reform/31406095/;
http://www.toledoblade.com/MarilouJohanek/2015/08/22/Governor-Kasich-s-education-agenda-unmasked.html#uoLbolBbxx8RLF4r.99;
http://www.plunderbund.com/2015/06/13/ohio-charter-school-operators-choose-financial-success-over-ethics/
Pennsylvania: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/02/big_for-profit_schools_big_don.html
South Carolina: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article32398251.html
North Carolina: http://www.propublica.org/series/evaluating-charter-schools
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2015/09/02/new-policy-eliminates-daily-student-attendance-reporting-requirements-for-states-new-virtual-charter-schools/#sthash.bGae4phh.gbpl&st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/
Michigan: http://www.mitchellrobinson.net/2015/08/17/if-you-can-t-beat-em-destabilize-em/
New York: http://www.propublica.org/article/ny-state-official-raises-alarm-on-charter-schools-and-gets-ignored
Louisiana: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/the-myth-of-the-new-orleans-school-makeover.html?_r=1
Georgia: http://getschooled.blog.ajc.com/2015/08/19/opinion-gov-deals-opportunity-school-district-offers-opportunity-but-not-for-students/
http://getschooled.blog.ajc.com/2015/10/22/atlanta-police-more-than-600000-taken-from-atlanta-latin-academy-bank-accounts/
Nationally: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/10/the_truth_about_charter_schools_padded_cells_corruption_lousy_instruction_and_worse_results/
http://populardemocracy.org/news/tip-iceberg-charter-school-vulnerabilities-waste-fraud-and-abuse
http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?
t=LRN;http://www.salon.com/2015/01/01/exposing_the_charter_school_lie_michelle_rhee_louis_c_k_and_the_year_phony_education_reform_revealed_its_true_colors/
President Obama and his Secretary of Education are always careful to say that they support ‘good’ charter schools and oppose ‘bad’ ones, even as they approve spending federal funds to support charter schools. I question whether that qualifies as strong leadership.
Studies indicate that, at best, half of charter schools do better academically than traditional public schools, and half do not, but that’s only using the narrow measure of test scores. Shouldn’t the strong charter schools be leading the dialogue about what constitutes quality, instead of falling in line to worship at the altar of standardized test scores? Shouldn’t they be upset about all the bad apples?
The leading national organization of non-profit charter schools, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, is conspicuously silent on the ripping off that’s going on. To me, that group’s failure to make a stink makes it part of the problem. I communicated my concern to Nina Rees, the organization’s leader. She responded by laying the blame on authorizers and on those responsible for enforcing the rules.
————————————
NINA REES: “States are supposed to take the lead on regulation and supervision. Ideally, a state should speak up when a charter school screws up. Maybe I should elevate the noise to a national level, but our focus is national and on states with either weak charter laws or no law at all. Most states that have charter schools also have rules, but unfortunately they are not always enforced.
“Is there a trend of financial and other bad behavior? Perhaps in the for-profit side. However, I do not have an issue with for-profit charter schools generally, as long as the school is good. If the school is good, who cares?”
“The weak link in the system is the authorizers.”
————————————
Greg Richmond, the thoughtful leader of the national group of charter authorizers, believes there’s plenty of blame to go around, adding that “(M)ost of it belongs to the bad schools themselves, but parents, legislators, courts and authorizing bodies often work in ways that keep bad or fraudulent schools going.”
He went on:
————————————
GREG RICHMOND: “I’m frustrated by the bad actors in the charter school community. There are several forces that keep those schools around. In most cases, parents at those schools fight the closure of those schools, just like parents anywhere oppose the closure of their school. If an authorizer closes the school anyway, courts often step in to keep these schools open.
“Also, in a few states, some companies that run charter schools are major donors to state legislators, which enables them to write laws that are weak on accountability.
“Finally, most authorizing bodies are school districts and most school districts do not pay enough attention to charter schools. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but many school districts would rather complain about charter schools after a problem surfaces instead of putting in place oversight systems that could prevent the failure.”
————————————
Richmond raised an interesting point: Perhaps the number of scandals (too many, he said) hasn’t increased; perhaps it’s better reporting that digging out and identifying the bad actors.
He concluded by defending his tribe, the authorizers.
————————————
GREG RICHMOND: “There are other types of data that suggest that things are getting better – authorizers are doing their job better, perhaps catching more fraud and perhaps preventing problems before they occur.
“For example, over the past few years, much larger percentages of authorizers report implementing NACSA’s Essential Practices for authorizers. http://www.qualitycharters.org/for-authorizers/12-essential-practices/ 100% of the authorizers we surveyed now require an annual audit from each school. A few years ago, that was about 80%. 97% of authorizers have financial monitoring systems in place in addition to the audit.”
————————————
When I asked the leaders of several well-known charter school networks for responses, a pattern emerged.
Mike Feinberg, the co-founder of KIPP:
————————————
MIKE FEINBERG of KIPP: “The scandals we’ve seen recently and historically have all been very sad. And so have the scandals we’ve seen in the traditional school districts as well. The silver lining with the public charter scandals is that they seem to be resulting in charters closing down. It’s too bad we don’t see the same swift and absolute reaction to similar scandals on the traditional school district side as well, as all of us in the public should have zero tolerance for any behavior that hurts our public schools and students.”
“I’m not familiar with details of the scandals all over the country but certainly know about what’s happening in Texas, where I’m proud of what the state has done in the recent years to crack down on poor performance by both public charters and districts alike. We supported the SB2 legislation which passed in 2013. SB2 gave the state move power to close down poor performing public charter schools, as we now have a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy: 3 years in a row of poor academic or financial performance, and the state no longer may close a public charter, but rather, shall close a public charter.
“Furthermore, the state has vastly improved its authorizing in the past decade from what it looked like in the 90’s and early 2000’s, where it was far too easy for anyone to receive a charter. The process today is much more rigorous, and while perfection isn’t possible, it’s much more unlikely that a public charter approved today will be in the hands of fraudulent people.”
————————————
Eva Moskowitz, the founder and CEO of the Success Academies charter school network in New York City:
————————————
EVA MOSKOWITZ: (who makes over $600,000 annually, JACK) “I condemn fiscal mismanagement and impropriety and corruption wherever it exists…and it exists obviously across whole swaths of society let alone types of public schools, whether district or public charters…scandals occur daily in the NYC district school system…sometimes multiple times a day! But where ever it occurs it is wrong.”
————————————
And Ms. Moskowitz reacted to my reference to the charter school ‘brand.’
————————————
EVA MOSKOWITZ: “‘Brand’ is an interesting choice of words…I do not think of it that way…I am committed to parent choice, and educational excellence, not a brand. I do my absolute best every day to wake up and contribute to making schools better for kids and for expanding parent choice…”
————————————
I also wrote to Carl and Gail Icahn, whose network of Icahn Charter Schools has been expanding in the Bronx. She responded:
————————————
CARL & GAIL ICAHN: “Can you send a link to the scandals to which you refer? We must have missed them….”
————————————
Why aren’t the leaders of acclaimed charter management organizations on the barricades? National groups, KIPP, Success Academies, Icahn Charters and other well-known CMO’s have the prestige in the movement and could make a difference. And so too could the large foundations like Broad and Walton that support charter expansion.
But they are largely defensive, often saying the equivalent of…
… “maybe we have problems, but it’s worse in regular public schools” …
… if they say anything at all.
How far does the taint have to spread before those folks wake up?
Other industries are quick on the draw when it comes to exposing charlatans and frauds.
Suppose I exploited my Doctorate from Harvard and began offering–as Dr. Merrow–psychological therapy for ‘stress reduction’ and treatment for ‘test anxiety,’ ‘math phobia,’ ‘marital discord,’ ‘A.D.D. related issues,’ and other medical-sounding problems? My degree is in “Education and Social Policy,” but who’s to know? How long would it take for the legitimate psychiatrists and psychologists to come down on me, hard? They would, rightly, see me as a fraud offering phony cures, and a threat to their legitimacy. They understand that, just as bad money drives out good, so too do frauds weaken, cheapen and debase those who are honorable.
Associations of insurance agencies, roofing contractors, et cetera are vigilant about their products and services, so why aren’t the legitimate charter schools operators and their supporters outraged by the widespread wrongdoing?
Here’s another analogy, using the noun ‘restaurant.’ Precisely what information does that noun convey? Very little; in fact, the word tells you only that food is served there at a price. To learn even the most basic information (kind of food, prices), you would need to scrutinize the menu. To ascertain anything about quality, however, you would want to have at least one meal there, and probably go on Yelp or some other website to read reviews.
Sadly, the term ‘charter school’ has become equally generic and virtually meaningless. The name over the door tells you almost nothing about what goes on inside the school. The charter school behind those walls could be a model of innovation, but it is just as likely to be a “drill-drill-drill” machine or a profit-making engine for greedy entrepreneurs.
Charter Schools need a HALL OF SHAME.
What happens when the 0.2% pull their funding from charters? In the aftermath (1) public property and real estate, snatched up by investors. (2) Pockets of financiers lined with high returns on debt. (3) Self-serving politicians elected, via oligarch campaign donations. (4) Payroll stubs for pseudo-philanthropic employees, who promoted the 0.2%’s, human capital pipeline. And, (5) students, families, communities, taxpayers and America, screwed.
America, the capital of Arkansas.