Parents and many of the staff at Central Park East 1 Elementary School in New York City have been protesting the current principal. CPE was founded by Deborah Meier as an experimental progressive school. It has had many wonderful principals over the years, and it draws a cross-section of students from out of district. About 2/3 of the parents are opposed to the principal because they believe she does not share the vision of CPE and is trying to destroy it. The failure of the New York City Department of Education to find a solution to this imbroglio is inexplicable and puzzling.
Jane Andrias and Deborah Meier wrote this comment to explain the background:
Deborah Meier has been having difficulty with her vision and is now dependent on voice activated devices for reading and writing. As a result an earlier response to the blog was incomplete.
In early April, Deborah and I wrote a response to Kate Taylor’s article in the NY Times on the conflict at Central Park East 1 (“CPE1”). The letter was not published. Taylor’s article raised many of the right questions confronting the institution but failed to explore why there has been no constructive solution to address the continuing conflicts within the school community and restore the safe and supportive learning environment for children and adults, which had been the hallmark of the school.
CPE1 was founded in 1974 as part of an East Harlem initiative to show what could be possible in what was at that time one of the poorest and most educationally deprived communities in the city. The then District Superintendent, Anthony Alvarado, invited us to start a small, progressive and democratically governed school. Over the ensuing 30 years the school developed a national and international reputation for success in educating its children while maintaining a democratic culture. Faculty, staff, families and children all felt respected and heard even in times when internal differences or external policy changes challenged the integrity of the school’s core beliefs and highly developed practice. All important decisions were made collectively. One of the most notable features was the relationships that developed among staff, families and children, many of which last to this day. This continued and flourished long after Deborah left the school in 1985 under the leadership of the two principals who succeeded her.
While many of the attributes of the school have been threatened over the last decade, a third principal, who was the choice of the school community, succeeded in supporting the school culture and mission until she left to form her new school based on the principles and practices of CPE1.
The next principal who followed was also recommended by the school community but was not a strong enough leader to sustain and build on the mission of the school and the school began to erode. Three tenured teachers left the school at the end of her last year. Monika Garg was then appointed as the principal without the input or support of the school community. During the past two years with Ms. Garg as principal, the school’s mission has been totally undermined. Three more tenured teachers and one promising new teacher left the school at the end of last year.
A community that was once built on trust, compassion, the power of ideas and democratic process of decision making has become too distracted by controversy to function as a united and safe learning community for children and adults alike. Unless the unstated intent of the recent failure to end the turmoil of these past few years has been to close CPE1 so the space could be used for other purposes, it’s clear that we now face a choice between either replacing the principal or replacing the students, families and the school’s mission. We have made efforts over the past two years to join with the DOE to identify leadership that would build on the foundation of the past and restore the school’s excellent educational and democratic principles and culture. We are disappointed by the resistance of the DOE to take the necessary steps to constructively resolve this unrelenting and destructive conflict at CPE1.
Deborah Meier-1974-85-Founding Teacher/ Director, MacArthur Award Winner
Jane Andrias-1981-2003 Art Teacher and Principal
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is a tragic story, but one terribly familiar to those of us working in the New York City Department of Education. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen this story played out in our schools: a young, ardent principal, indoctrinated by the management principals of the DOE’s Leadership Academy, arrives at a perfectly functioning institution convinced that he or she needs to leave his or her mark–even if that mark is a fecal stain that destroys the school.
I blame Carmen Farina for this: as a chancellor, she has been a stunning disappointment. She is the reason why, for the moment at least, I can’t bring myself to contribute money to Bill De Blasio’s reelection campaign. She should intervene, remove this principal–yet another New York City School administrator intoxicated by her own sense of her power (and it depresses me to think of how many of these people it has been my misfortune to watch in action over the years)–and restore this school to the successful equilibrium it has enjoyed over the decades.
Either that or run it into the ground, which seems to be the prevailing ethic these days.
LikeLike
If it makes you feel less conflicted, I don’t think BDB is going to need our money.
LikeLike
It does, and I thank you FLERP!
LikeLike
Don’t forget that the UFT misleadership has done nothing to support the school or its teachers.
Last month the Chapter Leader was removed from the school under trumped-up charges, put put in the rubber room, and is now facing accelerated charges, something that under the leadership of Albert Shanker would have led to outright warfare. Predictably, the current UFT misleadership under the chancellor’s lapdog, Michael Mulgrew, has done nothing, and this week its Executive Board voted to continue tabling a resolution in support of the school, teachers and parents. An utter disgrace…
LikeLike
Yeah, I know you’re right Michael, and I have never been very happy with the UFT or its leadership in the 14 years I’ve been a teacher here in New York. “An utter disgrace” is exactly right. In the early eighties I was in the Teamsters, and as I remember the union, this kind of nonsense would have never been permitted to stand.
And thanks for the comment–I appreciate the discourse.
LikeLike
Likewise…
LikeLike
Sadly, this story has been repeated throughout the country at many innovative, progressive district schools. A multi-racial group of mothers convinced the St Paul Public Schools in 1970 to start an innovative K-12 district public school with many progressive practices. The school has survived but now serves grades 6-12. http://open.spps.org/
However, over the years since in opened in 1971, a number of principals have been appointed without the involvement of the families and faculty. Also, some faculty have been placed in the school who have no commitment to the school’s principles Things are going pretty well now but it has been a constant battle.
Unfortunately many progressive district schools started in the last 1960’s and early 1970’s have not survived.
LikeLike
Right, Mr. Nathan, and so-called education reform has nothing to do with that, does it?
LikeLike
Michael, In the late 1980’s, Al Shanker wrote that people educators trying to create new schools within schools are “treated like traitors or outlaws for daring to move outside the lock step…”If they somehow succeeded in creating a new program or sws, they could look forward to “insecurity, obscurity and outright hostility.”
I think there are forces both inside the traditional system and at policy levels that have made it much more difficult to to create and maintain progressive options. For what it’s worth, as a district alternative school teacher and then program coordinator, I attended alternative school meetings all over the country between about 1972 and this year, and have heard similar stories all over the nation.
I don’t think there is a single set of “education reform” principles that all trying to improve education agree on. So I try to get specific about what I’m in favor of and what I work to help make happen.
Examples of those projects and efforts are found at http://www.centerforschoolchange.org
LikeLike
You conveniently neglect to mention that Albert Shanker stepped back from his support for charter schools when he saw they were being hijacked by the like of your organization’s patrons.
LikeLike
Al Shanker abandoned charters in 1993, after seeing private corporations moving in to education to make a profit. He concluded that charters and vouchers were equally bad.
Chubb and Moe were cheerleaders for vouchers, but they concluded that charters would be just as good for eliminating democracy in education.
LikeLike
Shanker always wanted the new schools to be under the control of local boards and teacher unions. He was clear about that as Minnesota legislation was developed by many progressive educators, civil rights advocates, and community members. Our vision as noted earlier, came in part from Kenneth Clark, co-author of the doll test.
Clark urged creation of new public schools outside the control of local boards. He explicitly thought unions should be one of the groups that would be allowed to create these schools. We in Minnesota agreed, and still agree.
LikeLike
Yes, he did disagree with the . Shanker always wanted the new options to be under the control of local boards and teacher unions. What Shanker described already was happening in some local districts, including NYC. So what Shanker proposed was not really new, although he helped publicize the word “charter.
Some of us followed the vision laid out by Kenneth Clark in 1968 – which called for new public schools outside the control of local boards – which could be started by a variety of groups, including unions.
The tragedy at Central Park East is an example of what drove some public school educators to push for the opportunity to create new public schools, open to all, that were not controlled by local boards of education.
LikeLike
Weasel words (“some public school teachers,” and no mention of corporate/foundation funding), Joe, and false history.
LikeLike
The history I described above involving Al Shanker, Kenneth Clark is readily available in published material from those individuals.
As to corporate contributions – yes – unquestionably both district and charter educators have received contributions from corporations.
I remember the terrific small NYC district public schools that were created in tEast Harlem and other parts of NYC that a group of Minnesota educators visited in early 1990’s. Places like El Puente, the “Fame” school, Frederick Douglass HS and many others received corporate contributions.
The same is true of innovative district public schools, and statewide public schools throughout the US.
LikeLike
THANK the DEFORMERS in BOTH parties for this ONE.
LikeLike
The bottom line is that students thrive when there is collaboration between teachers, parents, and administration. If one of those three is out of balance, the entire structure begins to erode and eventually collapses.
LikeLike