John Merrow reports that Eva Moskowitz is going on the offensive to counter bad PR of the past few months:
“After many months of intense scrutiny and criticism, Dr. Eva Moskowitz, the founder and CEO of Success Academies Charter School Network, has gone on the offensive. In this effort, she has the help of an expensive PR firm, her traditional ally the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Club of New York, and–surprisingly–WNYC reporter Beth Fertig.
“The recent criticism began last October, when the PBS NewsHour exposed her practice of multiple out of school suspensions of 5-, 6- and 7-year-olds. (My last piece for the NewsHour before I retired.) Later in October Kate Taylor of the New York Times revealed that one of her schools had a ‘got to go’ list of students to be dropped. Moskowitz did not fire the principal. In an electrifying report in February, Taylor wrote about a video of a Success Academy teacher humiliating a child.
“Dr. Moskowitz has retained Mercury LLC, the same PR firm that is advising Michigan’s embattled Governor, Rick Snyder. She emailed her staff accusing the New York Times of a ‘vendetta’ against her. On Monday, March 14, the Wall Street Journal published her op-ed, “Orderliness in School: What a Concept”. “Over the past year the Times’s principal education reporter has devoted 34% of the total word count for her education stories, including four of her seven longest articles, to unrelentingly negative coverage of Success,” Moskowitz wrote.
“But her main point was that she and Success Academies represent the last line of defense against violent and disruptive behavior in our schools. Did the PR firm suggest she tar her critics with the old reliable “commie-pinko” brush? (Making it parenthetical was a nice touch.)
[She wrote:]
“The unstated premise is that parents are susceptible to being duped because they are poor and unsophisticated. (Once upon a time, this view was known as “false consciousness”—the Marxist critique of how the proletariat could be misled by capitalist society.)”
Merrow writes:
“The Harvard Club of New York is, perhaps inadvertently, also helping Moskowitz. It has scheduled an evening presentation on Monday, March 29th , to be followed by a panel discussion. The blurb describing the event makes no mention of any criticism. Here’s a sample:
“Eva Moskowitz founded Success Academy Charter Schools in 2006 with the dual mission of building world-class schools for New York City children and serving as a catalyst and a national model for education reform to help change public policies that prevent so many children from having access to opportunity. Firmly believing that inner-city students deserve the same high-quality education as their more affluent peers, and convinced that all children, regardless of zip code or socioeconomic background, can achieve at the highest levels, she opened the first Success Academy in Harlem and today operates 34 schools in some of the city’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods. Success Academy continues to grow at a rapid pace and will be hiring more than 900 teachers and other personnel before the next academic year.
“After Moskowitz’s presentation, a discussion will be moderated by a ‘Senior Reporter’ from The 74, which is not a journalistic organization but an advocacy group. The panelists are James Merriman, President, New York City Charter School Center; Michael Petrilli, President, Thomas B. Fordham Institute; and Charles Sahm, Director, Education Policy, Manhattan Institute, all strong charter school advocates who have publicly supported Moskowitz and Success Academies.
“What do you suppose they will ‘debate’? How about this for a tough question: The New York Times: Threat or Menace?”
Read the rest and view the links. Merrow is still reporting although he claims to have retired
I think Eva was born offensive.
Well, she certainly offends a lot of people.
Eva is wrong in assuming she is the last line of defense against chaos. Urban public schools would be a lot less chaotic if they had budget parity with most suburban schools. Students deserve to attend bright, welcoming, well resourced, integrated schools with smaller class sizes. All students deserve a comprehensive curriculum free of the burden of excessive testing. They deserve support staff to help students deal with family and personal problems. Students deserve to be valued and respected. What no student deserves is to be berated for getting an incorrect answer or being repeatedly suspended for minor infractions. If Eva’s image is tarnished, she has earned the blemish through her one size fits all system of student management.
I personally think Eva has a point. The NYT has clearly targeted her and Success Academy in its education reporting.
Additionally, I think those of us who criticize her disciplinary policies are barking up the wrong tree. One of the reasons her schools are successful in increasing test scores is precisely because they have greatly reduced the distraction from inappropriate behavior. While she may be on the far end of the discipline system spectrum, many of us who work in the trenches in traditional public schools wish we could be closer to that end.
Labeling her policies, which are basically good ideas, as “extreme” or “drastic” as many have done distracts from the real issues, which are: (1) Should schools be evaluated merely by performance on standardized tests and if so which tests are the ones that should be use for that evaluation? (2) Success and similar charters should not be presented to the public as evidence for charter expansion, not because their policies are fundamentally bad ideas, but because success that is derived from high attrition cannot possibly scale.
With all due respect, your comments—I am assuming inadvertently—support the thrust of the posting.
Eva Moskowitz and other heavyweights of the self-styled “education reform” movement are not providing solutions to the problems they claim to be addressing. It is not just that their supposed fixes can’t be scaled up, but they aren’t working as advertised even in their scaled down versions.
That’s the way I see it.
😎
Imagine if Success Academy were the model for all schools. The “top” schools would kick out kids who don’t get high scores. And the rest –the majority–would languish.
Is the Times biased against Eva? Not long ago, the NY Times magazine published a puff piece about her with no mention of attrition.
I don’t agree.
Let’s take the “kids crying” issue. Eva doesn’t believe that the kids’ constant incidents of crying at her schools — reported by N.Y. Times reporter Kate Taylor and 20 former teachers quoted by Taylor —- is an unfortunate consequence of which she disapproves, but an actual “goal” of her pedagogy. On multiple occasions, she has said that it’s good when kids cry, because that means they care… or are being influenced to care about their education through their extreme and demanding pedagogy.
In support of this, Eva keeps bringing up the comparison to Olympic athletes who cry when they perform badly, and lose out on a middle.
No one ever objects to Olympic athletes crying, so what’s the big deal when Success Academy students do?.
Well, the big deal is that, unlike adult athletes, her students are children. Therefore, deliberately inducing states of despair to the point that these states are regularly accompanied by crying is child abuse.
She just said as much at TFA’s 25th anniversary, where they had a module celebrating Success Academy. Here’s Eva’s inability to distinguish between adults performing in the Olympics, and the children learning at her schools.
The NYTimes reporter to whom she refers is Kate Taylor, by the way.
( 1:30:17 – 1:30:45 )
( 1:30:17 – 1:30:45 )
EVA MOSKOWITZ: “It’s frustrating to us that when
a New York Times reporter seeds a kid crying because
the kid didn’t do well, her assumption is that that’s sort
of ‘torture.’ Right? Whereas Olympic athletes, when they
don’t do well, they cry … often. And that’s considered…
’cause they care! They care about their performance in the
sport. Our kids care about their level of growth. They
care about getting as close to the excellence as they can.”
There’s a whole mess of wrong going on at this module:
One of Eva’s principals even says that with
Success Academy Students (as young as
4… i.e. Kinders with late birthdays), the teachers
should place the same demands on them that
a college professor places on university students.
( 1:30:17 – 1:30:45 )
( 1:34:44 – 1:34:44 )
S.A. PRINCIPAL: “Eva likes to talk about how
they’re SMALLER PEOPLE, not just small
children,so you have to respect their intellect, and
everything that you study and plan needs to be done as if
you were in a college classroom.”
It’s hard to respond to something like that, a comment
that is so patently absurd and just plain wrong, particularly
in the early K-1-2 grades
Well, that thinking comes from the top:
https://dianeravitch.net/2015/10/31/jack-covey-reviews-evas-ed-talk/comment-page-1/
———–
“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:
Indeed, the video Success Academy teacher Charlotte Dial abusing a child is not the “anomaly’ that Eva keeps claiming that it is. It’s a deliberate outgrowth of thinking that is represented in the quotes above.
Indeed, Eva put Charlotte Dial — who has no teaching credential in New York State or any other state, by the way — in charge of training other Success Academy teachers. Making Dial the top trainer of teachers is not just giving Success Academy teachers the “Green Light” permission to do likewise. It’s saying that treating kids the way Charlotte Dial did is actually mandatory.
daveeckstrom says: “One of the reasons her schools are successful in increasing test scores is precisely because they have greatly reduced the distraction from inappropriate behavior. ”
Wrong. One of the reasons her schools are successful is that the attrition rate is twice as high as other charter schools with mediocre scores because they don’t kick out the low-performing kids under the pretense that it is because they are violent at age 6. Beth Fertig proved that in her article that was supposed to praise Success Academy. But, poor journalist that Ms. Fertig is, she didn’t realize that her glaring error in not following up just made her look bad.
Eva Moskowitz has purposely designed a system that hounds and humiliates the youngest children under the pretense that it is “no excuses” when it is really about getting those “got to go” kids to withdraw. Why do you think that teacher in the video is the MODEL teacher at Success Academy? She defines exactly what other teachers are supposed to do and if they don’t, out they go. Why do you think the principal who eventually got caught with the “got to go” list was sent to that school? He trained under the MODEL Success Academy principals whose schools also have high attrition and high suspension rates.
The pretense that getting rid of low-performing kids is for any reason than it is cheaper not to have to educate them and it allows you to pretend you are getting results you aren’t needs to be called out. Because otherwise, if it is enabled, all charter schools will soon follow their lead. Do you really expect a charter school operator to give a darn about a low-performing kid? Why should they when the charter schools are rewarded most if they kick them out?
Her policy is basically good ideas because her chambers are private entity, and she can write whatever policy to harm, torture children in her chambers? That makes her so easy to create her establishment to ignore public accountability. She did that numerous times–including ‘got to go’ list. And she gets so pissed at mayor de Balsio and media for revealing secrets in her school. Sorry, it’s the argument called ‘Best for Business.’
Yep, PR. It’s like watching everybody drink and smoke openly and avidly in the office in Mad Men. Unregulated and mismanaged charters are worse than that for precious young ones. And Eva is the poster child, so to speak, for grossly defended gross and large-scale mismanagement.
John Merrow is a skilled reporter who has done much to atone for his credulous coverage of the hostile takeover of public education in years past, but he’s being really naive in expressing “surprise” about WNYC’s Beth Fertig functioning as a mouthpiece for Evil Moskowitz and so-called reform.
Fertig, in keeping with almost all WNYC/NPR coverage (“… brought to you by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation”) has been a stenographer for so-called reform for years.
I agree, Michael, that Merrow has been long in his conversion moment about “reform”. Merrow, like the reformers, has scant experience as a classroom teacher, yet has been seen by many as an education expert.
Career teachers – what would they know?
Does Eva have small hands?
The charter school industry has CBS helping them with PR, as expected. Since the former executive from Fox and Bloomberg took over CBS programming, the news and the morning shows are non-stop corporate spin.
Last week, CBS gave Google good PR, for its contribution to the “charity” that crowd funds for teachers’ projects for their students. (The “charity” makes a point of calling charter schools, public schools.) Of course, the co-hosts didn’t mention the off-shore Google accounts avoiding taxes, which would have made, the begging, unnecessary. CBS also didn’t mention any connection between the amount that the “charity” takes in, as a voluntary remittance, over and above its fees, and the “charity’s” hour-long prime time broadcast on all three major networks.
Since the Waltons finance both 74 and Fordham, having representatives of both, on the panel, is redundant.
More redundancy, but, different funding, might result in John King’s inclusion.
If they want diversity of opinion, taxpayers writing the checks for charter schools that they don’t want, could be added.
Diane, I don’t dispute you that Beth Fertig writes many stories that appear pro-charter, but can you add some links to the above post, so it’s clear why you mention her name in this context?
Beth Fertig did a similar story 4 or 5 years ago, using similar numbers. She chose only to look at one year’s data, and also – as John Merrow points out — only to choose the Success Academy way of noting attrition rates so that any child who is drummed out at the beginning of school is never included. The embarrassing “study” that Fertig did then has been cited by Success Academy as definitive “proof” that there is nothing at all unusual about the high number of students who disappear. But we only had to see the got to go list and the video to know how true that is.
So suddenly Fertig comes up with a second report using the same so-called “data”? And she buries the lede — which is that compared to far worse performing charters like KIPP, Success Academy loses far more students — an attrition rate that may be twice or 3 times as high as charter schools with mediocre scores. In other words, Fertig’s data showed her that low-income parents are SIGNIFICANTLY less likely to leave a lower-performing charter school than they are to leave Success Academy charter school, the best funded school with the top results. The idea that anyone calling herself a “reporter” wouldn’t follow up on such newsworthy data is truly unbelievable and certainly indicates that Fertig is either uninterested in the real news in her data or just not a very good reporter. “Low-income parents like charters that get mediocre test scores far more than they like charters that get terrific ones.”! That’s what Fertig’s headline should be but since that is so absurd and would make any reader immediately question what is going on at Success Academy, she seems to avoid it at all costs.
The other thing is that one year’s snapshot is meaningless. What tells much more is the high number of Kindergarten students who win the lottery who disappear from Success Academy schools. The IBO did a study that included Success Academy and Fertig could have requested the disaggregated data to see if Success Academy was losing most of its starting Kindergarten class while other charters weren’t. We already know they are losing far more students every year than almost any other charter school network despite having test results that are stunningly higher than ALL of them. Why? Reporter Beth Fertig has absolutely no interest in finding out why that could be true because we all know what the answer is — that Success Academy makes kids who can’t keep up feel misery until they leave. We all know that is a far more likely scenario than parents leaving the richest and highest performing charter twice as often as they leave much poorer and lower-performing ones.
I was disgusted to turn on the television, and New York 1 (Time Warner News) had a piece on “Excellence for New York Schools” or whatever it’s called, blasting DiBlasio and the DOE for gun violence in the schools. NY1 reported this as fact, complete with a couple of mouth-pieces from “Excellence.” Oh, Eva and her PR are good…
But, she is inciting panic, like the Donald.
This 25th Anniversary TFA event happened just
prior to the Charlotte Dial abuse video, but
after the Got-to-Go List controversy.
Eva’s clearly angry about the reports about her
schools failing to meet the needs of “Special Ed.”
kids, and instead, kicking them out. She claims
victim status, and insinuates that those critics
don’t really care about Special Needs kids,
whereas she does. To that, she claims that
the “Special Ed. Compliance Machine” is
“strangling” Success Academy schools.
She wants current policies protecting and looking
out for special needs changed to her liking.
God forbid that should happen.
( 11:02 – 11:50 )
( 11:02 – 11:50 )
EVA MOSKOWITZ: “We think that we’re not really
going to make the dream of TFA come true until
we change the public policies in this country.
And I believe that educators don’t have enough
of a voice at the table on those public policies.
“You know, because you’ve been in the classroom, or
because you’ve led a school … you know that it’s
not just a question of resources. Resources, of
course, are helpful. You know it’s about
teacher training. It’s about ‘leader training.’
“It’s about not being strangled by regulations that
are really not driven, or are not really about children.
If you take the…
— (sarcastic tone & facial expression, waving her arms)
“the ‘Special Ed. Compliance Machine,’ it’s not really
about serving that Special Needs child, so there’s a lot
of work to do on the educational front… ”
——————-
She just throws that cheap shot out there, but doesn’t
elaborate or explain what the-hell she means. She then
plays a slick propaganda video for Success Academy.
What exactly is she referring to, anyway?
Eva absolutely despises he fact that
school officials are legally required to
identify which children have Special Ed. disabilities,
and then must provide them with extra, targeted, and yes
expensive support– including smaller class sizes,
an I.E.P. with a team that meets regularly to monitor
whether or not the I.E.P. is being implemented.
I know that since the Charlotte Dial abuse video,
she’s changed her tune about Success Academy
serving all children. Her latest is that for
Special Ed. kids, Success Academy is not the place
to go, that S.A. cannot be all things to all children.
Well, then don’t call your schools “public schools.”
WARNING: this is long, but well worth the read.
Eva’s got an interesting strategy: make up a ridiculously, long, all-inclusive and demanding set of rules for her students, one that insures of which even the most compliant students will fall short of daily. Then target those more difficult students — kids who get low test scores, kids who act out with behavior, kids who act out because of their innate mental make up (Special Ed.), by using this list.
Below is the actual verbatim pages from the Success Academy school manual, with a description of all student behavior violations — a pretty comprehensive list — that will lead to a child’s dismissal. It backs up the accusations that John Merrow made in his report here:
I found it at John Merrow’s personal blog here: (subscribe to it if you can… he’s worked hard on this story 😉 )
http://themerrowreport.com/2015/10/15/the-rules-at-success-academies/
Here’s the pdf of the Success Academy rules:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5mXKGS4xL6iVnlZMzIyWi05eHc/view
Here’s the text:
—————————————————
“Discipline —
“Violations:
“Anytime a scholar violates school or classroom rules or policies, it is considered a behavior infraction. Behavior infractions include, but are not limited to:
” — Non-compliance with the school dress code
” — Non-compliance with the school attendance policy
” — Non-compliance with the code of conduct
“Violence and Aggression —
“We must ensure that our scholars are safe at all times in our schools. Success Academy has a zero-tolerance approach when it comes to aggressive or violent conduct that puts the safety of our scholars or staff in jeopardy.
“In the classroom, we teach our scholars strategies to peacefully handle disagreements. We teach them that violence is never the solution. Scholars who engage in aggressive or violent conduct will be suspended. Scholars who hit because “he hit me first” will also be suspended.
————
“Suspensions and Expulsion:
“Scholars who repeatedly disregard directions, compromise the safety of others, or violate our policies may be suspended.
“A short-term suspension refers to the removal of a scholar from the school for disciplinary reasons for a period of five days or fewer. A long-term suspension refers to the removal of a scholar for disciplinary reasons for a period of more than five days. Expulsion refers to the permanent removal of scholar from school for disciplinary reasons.
“If your scholar is suspended, a member of the school leadership team will call to inform you. You will receive a suspension letter at pick up or within 24 hours. You should make arrangements with the school for mandatory alternative instruction for your scholar during his or her suspension.
————
“Disciplinary Policy and Code of Conduct
“In order to establish and maintain school culture, the following Code of Conduct contains a list of possible infractions and potential consequences. Please keep in mind that the list of unacceptable conduct and consequences is not exhaustive. Teachers and staff can supplement this Code of Conduct with their own rules for classes and events.
“In addition, violations of the Code of Conduct and resulting consequences are subject to the discretion of the Principal and may be adjusted accordingly. A scholar’s prior conduct and his or her disciplinary history may be factors in determining the appropriate consequence for an infraction.
“The Code of Conduct will be enforced at all times. Scholars must adhere to the Code of Conduct when at school on school grounds, participating in a school sponsored activity, and walking to or from, waiting for, or riding on public transportation to and from school or a school-sponsored activity.
“Serious misconduct outside of the school is considered a school disciplinary offense when the misconduct or the scholar’s continued presence at the school has or would have a significant detrimental effect on the school and/or has created or would create a risk of substantial disruption to the work of the school.
————
“Code of Conduct:
“Level 1 Infractions:
“Slouching/failing to be in “Ready to Succeed” position (SPORT or Magic 5 position)
” — Calling out an answer
” — Chewing gum or bringing candy to school
” — Minor disrespectful behavior
“Range of School Responses, Interventions, & Consequences for Level l Infractions
” — Warning/reprimand by school staff
” — Scholar is reminded of appropriate behavior and task at hand
” — Scholar is reminded of what he/she is like at his/her best and of past good behavior
“Scholar is reminded of past poor decisions and provided with productive alternatives/choices that should be made
” — Scholar is given a non-verbal warning
” — Scholar is given a verbal warning
“Level 2 Infractions
” — Committing a Level 1 Infraction after intervention
” — Verbally or physically dishonoring a fellow scholar (which includes, but is not limited to, teasing, name calling, being rude, mocking, etc.)
” — Verbally or physically dishonoring faculty, staff, or other Success Academy community members (which includes, but is not limited to, being rude, disobeying instructions, etc.)
” — Using school equipment (e.g. computers, faxes, phones) without permission
” — Bringing electronic equipment to school of any kind without school authorization (which includes, but is not limited to, cell phones, Game Boys, iPods, headphones, pagers, radios, etc.)
” — Unauthorized possession or use of a cell phone
” — Failing to follow directions
” — Failing to complete work
” — Being off-task
” — Arriving late to school/class and/or violating school attendance policy
” — Violating the Dress Code
” — Being unprepared for class (which includes, but is not limited to, failing to bring a pencil, not completing homework, etc.)
” — Wearing clothing or other items that are unsafe or disruptive to the educational process
” — Failure to obtain signatures for required assignments
” — Disrupting class or educational process in any way at any time (which includes, but is not limited to, making excessive noise in a classroom, failing to participate, refusing to work with partners, etc.)
” — Leaving the recess area during recess without permission from an authorized adult
” — Being in an off-limits location without permission
” — Failing to be in one’s assigned place on school premises
” — Getting out of one’s seat without permission at any point during the school day
” — Going to the bathroom without permission or at undesignated times
” — Making noise in the hallways, in the auditorium, or any general building space without permission
” — Inappropriate noise levels in lunchroom, gym, and during arrival and dismissal
” — Engaging in unsafe behavior, failing to use recess equipment properly, or failing to follow directions during recess
” — Excluding classmates in games/activities during recess
” — Littering on school grounds
————
“Range of School Responses, Interventions, & Consequences for Level 2 Infractions
” — Scholar is reminded of appropriate behavior and task at hand
” — Scholar is given a verbal warning
” — Removal from classroom for ”Time Out” outside of the classroom (administrator’s office)
” — Student-Teacher-Parent conference
” — Student-Parent-Administrator Conference
” — in-school disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)
” — Verbal or written apology to community
” — In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
” — Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
” — Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period or expulsion)
————
“Level 3 Infractions:
” — Committing a Level 2 Infraction after intervention
” — Dishonoring a fellow scholar using profanity, racial slurs, or any foul or discriminatory language
” — Dishonoring a faculty, staff, or other Success Academy community member using profanity, racial slurs, or any foul/discriminatory language
” — Disobeying or defying school staff or any school authority/personnel
” — Using profane, obscene, lewd, abusive, or discriminatory language or gestures in any context (which includes, but is not limited to, slurs based upon race, ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability)
” — Posting or distributing inappropriate materials (which includes, but is not limited to, unauthorized materials, defamatory or libelous materials, or threatening materials)
” — Violating the school’s Technology and Social Media Acceptable Use Policy (which includes, but is not limited to, using the Internet for purposes not related to school/educational purposes or which result in security/privacy violations)
” — Forgery of any kind
” — Lying or providing false or misleading information to school personnel
” — Engaging in any academic dishonesty (which includes, but is not limited to, cheating, plagiarizing, copying another’s work, or colluding/fraudulent collaboration without expressed permission from a school authority)
” — Tampering with school records or school documents/materials by any method
” — Falsely activating a fire alarm or other disaster alarm
” — Making threats of any kind
” — Claiming to possess a weapon
” — Misusing other people’s property
” — Vandalizing school property or property belonging to staff, scholars, or others (which includes, but is not limited to, writing on desks, writing on school books, damaging property, etc.)
” — Stealing or knowingly possessing property belonging to another person without proper authorization
” — Smoking
” — Gambling
” — Throwing any objects
” — Engaging in inappropriate or unwanted physical contact
” — Fighting or engaging in physically aggressive behavior of any kind (which includes, but is not limited to, play fighting, horsing around, shoving, pushing, or any unwanted or aggressive physical contact)
” — Leaving class, school-related activity, or school premises without school authorization
” — Repeatedly failing to attend class, school, or any school activity or event and/or repeatedly violating school attendance policy
————
“Range of School Responses, Interventions,
& Consequences for Level 3 Infractions:
” — Sent to principal/school administrator
” — Loss of classroom/school privileges
” — Additional assignments which require scholar to reflect on behavior in writing or orally (depending on grade)
” — Call home to parents/guardians
” — Removal from classroom or “Time Out” outside of the classroom (administrator’s office)
” — Student-Parent-Administrator Conference
————
” — In-School disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)
” — Verbal or written apology to community
” — Staying after school or coming in on Saturdays
” — In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
” — Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
” — Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period)
” — Expulsion
————
“Level 4 Infractions:
” — Committing a Level 3 Infraction after intervention
” — Repeated in-school and/or out-of-school suspensions
” — Exhibiting blatant and repeated disrespect for school code, policies, community, or culture
” — Engaging in gang-related behavior (which includes, but is not limited to, wearing gang apparel, making gestures, or signs)
” — Destroying or attempting to destroy school property
” — Engaging in intimidation, bullying, harassment, coercion, or extortion or threatening violence, injury, or harm to others (empty or real) or stalking or seeking to coerce
” — Engaging in behavior that creates a substantial risk of or results in injury/assault against any member of the school community
” — Engaging in sexual, racial, or any other type of harassment
” — Possessing, transferring, or using drugs, alcohol, or controlled substances
” — Participating in an incident of group violence
” — Possessing a weapon
” — Charged with or convicted of a felony
“Range of School Responses, Interventions, & Consequences for Level 4 Infractions
” — Sent to principal/school administrator
” — Loss of classroom/school privileges
” — Additional assignments that require scholar to reflect on behavior in writing or orally (depending on grade)
” — Call home to parents/guardians
” — Removal from classroom or “Time Out” outside of the classroom (administrator’s office)
” — Student-Parent-Administrator Conference
” — In-school disciplinary action (which includes, but is not limited to, exclusion from recess, communal lunch, enrichment activities, sports, school events, trips, or activities)
” — Verbal or written apology to community
” — Staying after school or coming in on Saturdays
” — In-school suspension (possibly immediate) in a buddy classroom
” — Out-of-school suspension (possibly immediate)
” — Other consequences/responses deemed appropriate by school (including, but not limited to, extended suspension for a fixed period)
” — Expulsion”
I am not sure she has ever been on the defensive, or that she gets the point. That reformers are holding up her selective schools as some sort of comparative model, schools that are called “public” because kids who can conform may be allowed to attend, …it is a false comparison. I recently wrote about that last video, Eva herself, and how she could deliver a message to diffuse a lot of this issue. It basically allows her to keep operating, but with more honesty from her and those who back her (vs the self-righteous victim of the haters and doubters act)
Eva approaches the mike:
“I am really nothing special, and certainly no teacher. My school is not one that dares take on the more serious behaviors and challenges that traditional schools and experienced professionals take on every day, and I know that. What I do have is access to a market and some promotional mechanisms that will provide some of the more capable and willing parents and students an escape hatch to greater achievement and opportunity than they might have otherwise realized in schools and classrooms failed by our economy, society, and policymakers. True, we don’t want them all. True, we can’t really just come in and work the same type of magic in a regular classroom, because not all students are so easily trained to comply. But by me simplifying the job for us, we can help some kids get great test scores. Not all, I know, so I promise not to keep comparing S.A.’s results with traditional schools and I ask the press to cooperate in helping keep me humble. What my schools choose to do and how we do it is far different than what other schools are obligated to do. I just want to help those with potential that could otherwise risk getting lost. Thank you.”
originally posted at
https://dmaxmj.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/evas-video-can-you-really-dismantle-a-position-against-crap-like-that/
BELOW is a great essay about these recent developments by Daniel Katz, at the end of which he predicts that with 100’s of former teachers, and 1000’s of former students who have had bad experiences with Success Academy, there’s no way that Eva can intimate or threaten all those folks into silence with lawsuits or whatever:
http://danielskatz.net/2015/11/01/eva-moskowitz-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-month/
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:
http://nymag.com/news/features/65614/index4.html
————————————–
NEW YORK MAGAZINE:
“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.”
Where is the money coming from that Ms. Moskowitz is spending on this PR campaign? Is it public tax dollars? Even if they aren’t, it’s still money that should be going into education.
Probably what she rakes in from her billionaire donors at every success academy event. Then again, I’ve often wondered if our tax dollars go towards advertising and damage control as well. One day, Eva will be dead. What happens to her schools then?