I heard from Sarah Jonas, executive director of New York City’s Office of Community Schools, about the good work of community schools. Note that the results refer to engagement in school, not test scores. That’s good news!
I asked Jonas for a brief description of the community schools model. She wrote:
“The principal and his/her leadership team (i.e. SLT) formally partner with a community-based organization (aka Lead CBO) through a contract to do three things: 1) collaborate with families to develop a vision for and co-lead the community school; 2) provide services that meet the needs of the community and the whole child (i.e. social-emotional, physical, and cognitive); 3) hire a community school director to coordinate services to ensure that the right services support the right child at the right time.”
To learn more about them, open the link to the RAND report:
Dear Diane,
I am reaching out to share exciting news about our Community Schools work in NYC. As you may know, we hired the RAND Corporation early in the launch of NYC’s Community Schools initiative to study implementation and impact of the work.
Today, RAND will release the impact study entitled “Illustrating the Promise of Community Schools: An Assessment of the Impact of the NYC Community Schools Initiative” that will offer incredibly encouraging news. Mayor de Blasio will hold a press conference about the report at PS 67, a Community School near Fort Greene.
According to the report, NYC is implementing Community Schools on a scale that has not been seen before in the United States. RAND found that “the Community Schools strategy is having tangible and significant impact on a variety of student outcomes.” Specifically:
• Students in Community Schools are more likely to graduate on time. In 2017-18, graduation rates in community schools were 7.2 percentage points higher than comparison schools.
• Students miss fewer days of school. Chronic absenteeism was 7.3 percentage points lower in community elementary and middle schools, and 8.3 points lower in high schools.
• Disciplinary incidents declined sharply in elementary and middle schools compared to non-community schools. For every 100 students in elementary and middle community schools, community schools had 10 fewer disciplinary incidents per year.
It is encouraging to see significant impact across a range of domains including academic, attendance and behavior. Attached is a two-page summary with more details. The full report can be viewed at this link on RAND’s website.
The Washington Post ran a story about the report this morning, and we expect more media coverage after the press conference. Please help spread the good news to your networks on social media – #CommunitySchools!!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Not sure I trust the community school model or the RAND Corporation. Please read this and let me know if you think I am wrong. The post sounds accurate and right to me, plus I do trust the researcher/blogger.
Maybe I’m dense but I don’t see the NYC model incorporating “pay for success” or other profit-making activities.
Not everything that happens is evil.
Listen, learn, and start with an open mind.
Right out of the gate: Skepticism.
I’ll try to read the report and Daniel’s post/link. However, my first thoughts are founded in a lack of trust of ANY corporation, or even the suggestion of “partnerships,” as now-systematic double-speak for a “fox gets into the chicken house” kind of relationship, e.g., can anyone voice authentic criticism of Rand Corporation from the basis of “community schools”? CBK
I believe the RAND Corporation has nothing to do with partnering on Community Schools. It merely gets a lot of money to evaluate what happens in Community Schools. And yes, it is a huge waste of money, but unfortunately as I posted below, sometimes progressives have to pick their battles to fight. If getting a seal of approval from the RAND Corporation that spending all that extra money on the kids who need it most means they can continue to spend it without hearing a constant propaganda attack about how it is a huge waste, then unfortunately that’s probably not worth fighting right now.
Your instincts are correct. Attendance is an impact metric. It was linked to what Kamala Harris was doing putting parents in prison over truancy. https://wrenchinthegears.com/2019/11/15/the-family-friendly-schools-act-a-set-up-for-soft-policing-schools-to-profit-impact-investors/
Why would we be indifferent to truancy? Kids who don’t attend school are not learning.
Truancy is one of the strongest predictors of school failure and dropping out. Why ignore it?
I read some of wrenchinthegears links and I find it very odd that trying to address truancy issues is implied to be throwing parents in jail. There are lots of efforts to address truancy that don’t include throwing parents into jail and there is no evidence I have seen that the NYC community schools program has ever considered imprisoning parents if their children are truant.
I don’t particularly trust the RAND Corporation, but I do trust the idea of Community Schools as a way to combat the extreme poverty of students in NYC. Unfortunately, we live in an era where just providing every kid with vision or dental care is not “worth it” unless that money can be proven to achieve other goals, too.
Kudos to de Blasio for at least trying to give something to the most extremely vulnerable and disadvantaged students besides charter schools that will demonize them if they don’t achieve academically.
Follow the money. So-called “community school” efforts are being underwritten by the individuals promoting speculative human capital investment and data dashboards for all social services. It’s a terrible thing. Please educate yourself. https://littlesis.org/org/276550-Communities_In_Schools_(CIS)
The money came from the taxes I pay as a NYC citizen! And that my neighbor pays and that the other parents in my kid’s public school pay.
Why are you telling me that NYC should stop using my tax money to help the most vulnerable schools?
I’m sorry that your state used the term “community schools” to mean something it isn’t.
Privatizers keep calling charter schools “public” schools but it would be very foolish to attack every single public school for being as bad as the worst “public” charter school because they both use the word “public” so they are exactly the same. But that is what you are doing.
You are saying that the NYC community schools program is the same as some other program in other states because they both use the word “community”. Maybe it is an honest mistake, but if someone was posting here about how the neighborhood public school was no different than a “public” charter school, because they both used the word “public”, I would wonder what their agenda really is.
Kinda makes you wonder doesn’t it? https://www.google.com/amp/s/wrenchinthegears.com/2019/10/22/a-letter-to-chicagos-teachers-on-the-perils-of-pay-for-success-finance-wrap-around-services/amp/
This is to scale up global impact investment programs through Promise Zones built on data extraction carried out by Druckenmiller and Tudor Jones in the Harlem Children’s zone for the past 30 years. It is racial capitalism. https://littlesis.org/org/358826-Coalition_for_Community_Schools
I know you see a dark conspiracy in every attempt to introduce change. Not all change is bad. Not all change is profit-driven. Don’t you think that people who are trying to change the discouraging conditions in which many kids live deserve some credit, not demonizing?
Please stop attributing evil intent to everyone who is trying to help students.
A distinction perhaps is in order? That is, raising critical questions is not equivalent to making too-quick judgments. And as a general “watch-for” movement, well-meaning people are merely pawns for ideologues with a longer view in mind. CBK
wrenchinthegears,
Why are you including a link about CHARTER schools in NYC when this discussion is about a program using taxpayer money to help a PUBLIC school?
In fact, the people in your link hate the community schools effort in NYC because the philosophy behind it is that it is better to spend taxpayer money (not “investors’ money”) to help the schools where the most vulnerable, poverty-stricken children attend rather than close them down and send them to charters.
Unless you are a secret supporter of replacing the public schools that teach the most at-risk kids with charters, why are you working so hard to give false information about the NYC community schools effort?
Diane Ravitch has informed you many times that this effort has nothing to do with other states’ programs, some of which may also use the word “community”. But you persist in trying to undermine what is a good taxpayer funded program that helps public schools instead of replacing them with charters.
Do you have a different agenda? The people who oppose the NYC community schools efforts are the very same ones who want to shut down public schools and replace them with charters. The people who support public schools in NYC understand the difference. Do you?
Follow the money: https://littlesis.org/org/276550-Communities_In_Schools_(CIS)
A totally different organization from the one sponsoring this project, which is NYC government.
Follow the money part 2: https://littlesis.org/org/358826-Coalition_for_Community_Schools
This link has no relation to the project that is the topic of the story.
One thing being a part of this list has done is make us all more aware of how the look for the double-speak and long threads (follow the money) that ultimately lead to the ideological intentions of people like Devos and the Walton’s who are so well-funded and who have so much power that they can pervade, control, and pervert anything they wish. And they are oh-so-good at making skirts (to hide behind) out of governmental agencies and weak-minded power-brokers.
Of course, there’s always hope; but it won’t be generated from ignorance and naivete of the public. And capitalism is not necessarily a disease, but in our present environment, where it has become so linked with powerful totalitarian ideologies, it has become one. CBK
Diane, I agree that we shouldn’t be indifferent to truancy. What is a better option than incarcerating parents, though? It seems to me that we need to question everything these days. It is hard to trust those who make the decisions for our public schools – they haven’t earned it.
I feel I hardly have the right to write again here without yet reading the Rand report or the other literature here.
But I do know this as a structural issue: Inserting a corporate entity (power) between a democratic state (as authentically democratic) and its school system is, all by itself, a prescription for killing the tree at its root, and inviting all of the problems associated with what has been the main themes here on this site.
There is nothing in individual or private schooling that, on principle, denies a good education to some or even most individual children. And many involved in that movement are completely well-meaning (though ignorant of what’s going on). The problems are more about preserving the very principles of democracy (for all) that allow for a good (non-ideological) education (not propaganda) and that are wedded to their political system as being free for everyone’s children; so that they are best able to preserve, be responsible for, and live well in the democracy that they have been educated in.
When I read the reports, I’ll be questioning where and who funding comes from; and whether there is reason not to better-support the present structures of public education. CBK
Catherine King says:
” Inserting a corporate entity (power) between a democratic state (as authentically democratic) and its school system is, all by itself, a prescription for killing the tree at its root, and inviting all of the problems associated with what has been the main themes here on this site.”
That’s a good point.
What “corporate entity” is being inserted between a democrat state and its school system in the NYC community schools initiative?
I still don’t understand why you would automatically assume there is a corporate entity inserted in the program.
NYCPSP: “What ‘corporate entity’ is being inserted between a democrat state and its school system in the NYC community schools initiative?”
Again, I haven’t read the current contributions yet, but the question in this case would concern “Rand Corporation” or others. The main question is: who (or what corporation), and with what motivations, has the power to control curriculum (by commission and omission), the selection of students for all sorts of nefarious “reasons,” and the herding of parents using all of the bells and whistles, public-school and teacher-bashing, double-speak, slyly drawing or even wrenching political control from local communities, etc., for their own ideological motivations.
From so many other contributions here, we have seen both short-term and long-term motivations. Short-term actors: where schools are closed or not even open, and tax money and resources stolen, etc., and where “over-regulation” is the insulting “problem.”
But the long-term comes from actors like Betsy and the Waltons (as example) who don’t need more money but are looking for more ideological and foundational change (social, political, and/or religious) that are fundamentally anti-democratic. For the longer-term motivations, providing a good education for SOME students and in SOME depressed areas are, itself, a “bell and whistle.” CBK
Catherine King,
The problem is that you are helping those forces or privatizing when you are attributing evil motives when a public school system decides to do exactly what Bernie Sanders education platform supports and address the problems of their most vulnerable at-risk students by directing additional taxpayer resources from the NYC taxpayer-funded public school budget to their schools. These are the teachers-union supported ideas and there is no corporate money involved, period, but you are still raising suspicions based not on evidence but because of some principle which I do not understand. It seems to be that every program that any public school board enacts that directs extra taxpayer dollars to public schools that serve at-risk kids must be assumed to have evil motives first. Why?
It is good to not accept everything on face value, but then you read more about it instead of implying bad motives even before bothering to find out more about that specific program. If I was a public school teacher teaching the most at-risk children in all of NYC and someone from out of state was – without any evidence – trying to undermine the extra taxpayer dollars going to my public school to provide extra resources from the very vulnerable kids I taught, and implying that my public school was really getting corporate dollars instead, I would wonder what their agenda was. I would be skeptical of their motives and I would wonder why someone would want to imply that a corporation was taking over my public school when nothing of the sort was happening.
I wonder if it the program was called “Bernie Sanders schools” instead of “Community Schools” (because this program does exactly the kinds of things that are in Bernie’s education platform using TAXPAYER dollars), if people would then look more closely at it BEFORE they decided it was very suspicious and they should make lots of innuendoes that it could be a corporate plot for a takeover.
NYCPSP writes: “These are the teachers-union supported ideas and there is no corporate money involved, period, but you are still raising suspicions based not on evidence but because of some principle which I do not understand.”
I’m saying this: that those who are concerned with public education and its relationship with its political base (“all of the people/for the people” e.g., students) should raise QUESTIONS, not “suspicions.” Big difference. If what you say about this particular situation is wholly right and has been verified by those who are not affiliated with “investors,” then great. We are in a time when we all need to double-check pretty-much everything, especially when not only our children’s education is at stake, but democracy as we know it (or even as we don’t know it).
Also, do you think that, because you “do not understand” what I am saying, then it has no related value? Is any of our present intellectual state of affairs, such as it is, the last standard in the world, in this case, yours? CBK
Diane Ravitch’s post had a link to the Washington Post story that made it very clear that this was the OPPOSITE of all the programs that Mayor Bloomberg and ed reformers were running.
“The Community Schools program, operating in 267 New York schools, uses school campuses to offer a range of social services and family supports. Unlike other reform ideas, the program does not directly address teacher quality, curriculum or other core aspects of education.
Rather, it seeks to use the school as a community gathering place where children can get counseling, eyeglasses or dental care; where after-school programs help with homework and keep kids engaged; and where parents can get involved with schools, take a class or pick up extra groceries.
“When that child is hungry, it’s very hard to focus on academics,” said Luis Torres, principal for 15 years at Benjamin Franklin School, an elementary campus in the South Bronx that participates in the community school program. He said children cannot learn if they are worried about food, shelter, safety or health. “That’s the real power of the community school. You’re not just focusing on academics. You’re focusing on the overall well-being of the children.”
…
“The program has been a priority for Mayor Bill de Blasio (D). He largely jettisoned the accountability education agenda of his predecessor, Mike Bloomberg, who focused on closing low-performing schools and replacing them with smaller schools with new employees. That approach angered teacher unions but led to an increase in high school graduation rates.
Critics argued that more funding was needed to help children with the most profound needs, and they found a champion in de Blasio.”
Again, I am all for raising questions but doesn’t it make sense to raise them after you find something about the program that should be questioned beyond its mere existence?
Danielle,
Please cite some source for your insinuation that the NYC community school effort addresses truancy by incarcerating parents.
If you can’t, then why even ask that question?
I also don’t think that immediately removing all truant children from their homes and putting them into orphanages until they are 18 is a good way to address truancy.
Danielle, I agree that we shouldn’t be indifferent to truancy but what is a better option than removing children from their homes and placing them into orphanages until they are 18?
It is hard to trust those who want to privatize public schools and promote charters and because of the billionaire money behind them have extraordinary power outside of NYC — they haven’t earned our trust.
Not a conspiracy when it’s right out in the open. Again, Philadelphia was a tested for attendance “nudges.” They were harassing parents whose kids missed like five days of school. This was not chronic truancy. Really it’s just about moving data on a dashboard so Goldman Sachs and their ilk get the pay out. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/todd_rogers/files/rogers_feller_absenteeism.pdf
You twist words and ideas and you confuse one sinister plot with a city-funded program to help kids and families.
Really, give the conspiracy mongering a rest.
I’m sorry you are confused. Maybe you should consider retiring.
I’m not confused. I’m annoyed that you post stupid comments on my blog.
Alison,
Rule #1 on this blog is that you don’t insult me. You did. Bad move.
Is “wrenchinthegears” really just an anti-public school blog whose motives are to scare public school parents so they stop supporting public schools? Is the real intention of that blog not to fight for children’s privacy rights but to push parents into leaving public schools to “protect” their child’s privacy?
Why would anyone who supports public schools tell Diane Ravitch “Maybe you should consider retiring.” That is like telling Ruth Bader Ginsburg “maybe you should consider retiring” when Trump would appoint her successor. Clearly we need the voice of Diane Ravitch in these precarious times, and just as clearly the right wing would like you (and Justice Ginsburg) to “retire”. But no one who supports public schools does. To respond to a disagreement about a program with a comment about retiring suggests something very untrustworthy about that poster’s motives.
I know it’s a lot to ask, but please never retire, Diane!
NYC PSP…. I believe that Alison has children/or a child that attend public schools in Philadelphia. She is always rallying for public schools and always blogging about it. I read her blog and often I can’t get to the end of one of her posts. She is prolific and fact driven and it really scares me or depresses me sometimes when she gets going on big business/ed tech/finance inserting itself in education and the needs of children. She is absolutely correct in her research. I (many) just want to see a few “trees”….but Wrench in the Gears wants you to see the “forest”. She thinks in the long term. She seeks to win the war and not just a battle. She is no right wing troll trying to destroy public education by scaring people into using Charter schools and vouchers and she “seems” very aligned with Bernie Sanders plan for education. I’m just putting this out there since she may have been blocked from posting? If you want a good debate, I suggest that click on over to her site and start commenting away!
LisaM,
If you read Alison’s many comments yesterday, you may have noticed that she threw out one red herring after another, offering false analogies and conspiracy theories based on speculation and hunches.
I said she had confused one event with another, and she replied that if I am confused (which I am not), I “should retire.” Her rage and mud-slinging are not welcome here.
LisaM,
Thank you, that is good to know and I appreciate your providing that helpful information. I still question her comment directed toward Diane about retiring.
If I said that Bernie Sanders education plan was just a trap to have corporations involved in the public schools and gather private data on kids, and no matter what people posted to explain that Bernie Sanders plan was NOT that, I just kept insisting that Bernie Sanders’ education plan was all about giving up your kids’ privacy, wouldn’t you question my motives?
If I posted that Medicare for All was really just a plan for the government to gather private health information about every American from the day they were born, and no matter what people told me about the good things about Medicare for All, I kept insisting it was really just a plan for the government to gather private health information for nefarious reasons, wouldn’t you eventually start questioning my motives?
The community schools program in NYC (not elsewhere) is about doing exactly the things that Bernie Sanders’ entire platform is about. It isn’t a corporate investment scheme. It’s trying to help schools that teach not just at-risk kids but the most at-risk of the at-risk kids. Instead of the false idea that Bloomberg and education reformers kept pushing that “send those kids to a charter school and they will be fine because they will have better teachers”, this program is addressing their non-academic needs. Middle class families take those things for granted, and even many low-income families can figure out the system enough to make sure their kids have what they have. But a program that uses taxpayer dollars to provide those things we all take for granted to the kids who are least likely to get it if it depends only on their parent(s) is a good thing.
What is sad is that the people who really hate the NYC community schools program are the right wing billionaire-supported privatizers who say that if even a penny of taxpayer dollars is spent in a public school and the only thing a kid got was a healthy dinner, eye glasses and dental care, that money was “wasted” if his test scores didn’t improve. So that is why I am suspicious when the people who self-identify as being on the left are also trying to undermine these programs that help public schools as much as those on the right do. And when they continue to raise doubts about the program no matter what information they are given to disabuse them of their belief that this is really a corporate takeover, then it is hard not to be suspicious of their motives. (Especially when they also suggest Diane Ravitch retire).
^^I should have added that I have utmost respect for advocates like Allison if she is working to publicize and fight big business/ed tech/finance inserting itself in education and the needs of children. That is wonderful, admirable work. But then why waste valuable time fighting something that isn’t that but that does good things for the most vulnerable kids?
I know every public program can morph into something that “collects data” on the people who are part of it. That could happen with Medicare for All also. I am sure there will be some data collection going on when it is enacted just like there is Medicare data collected but that doesn’t mean the data collected is for nefarious purposes. It definitely could be, and that is why it is important to have watchdogs, but merely the possibility that a good program like Medicare for All could be turned into that in the future could be used by those who oppose Medicare for All to scare people away from voting for Bernie.
NYC PSP….I know that Diane Ravitch can handle herself….so you shouldn’t get your panties in bunch about Alison’s “retiring” comment. There was a schism in the pro public education movement a few years back that I don’t understand (and I don’t want to!) . There was clearly a shift in mindset of the “Opt Out/Refuse the test’ people. Some stayed more moderate in approach and some got more radical and visceral in trying to expose corporate/tech America’s take over of public education. I think both sides have a lot to offer. I think both sides mean to do good for public education and children. For 25-30 yrs we have been fed lies about public education, teachers, failing schools etc and some are pretty angry and on a mission to expose it ALL. There is truth in all of it. Just remember that we EACH have “our own truth” based upon our own life experiences, but that our own truth is part of (and must fit in with) a ” larger/greater collective truth” shared by many. Save the fight for your enemies…not for the people who share your “collective truth”.
Lisa,
I hope you will read SLAYING GOLIATH.
You probably have read the rules of this blog.
#1: it’s my blog, don’t insult you’re host, me. Anyone who does is shown the door.
#2: Certain famous curse words are unacceptable.
#3: Be civil in tone.
#4: no conspiracy theories. Sandy Hook really happened.
The bottom line is that this blog is my living room, not a public park, and I kick out those who refuse the house rules.
Really, “panties in a bunch”? I expect that from a Trump supporter but that kind of gratuitous (and frankly, sexist) comment is so unnecessary if your intention was really to have a discussion.
People who are interested in having a discussion don’t usually start throwing out terms like ” time to retire” (or “panties in a bunch” for that matter). Diane can certainly take care of herself, but that doesn’t make the childish attack inviting her to retire any less offensive.
LisaM says: “Save the fight for your enemies…not for the people who share your “collective truth”.”
I suggest you take your own advice and perhaps the same goes for wrenchinthegears . wrenchinthegears chose to fight with Diane Ravitch when they both agree on exposing the corporate/tech attempted takeover of public education. I don’t care how radical or committed to a good cause someone is, it doesn’t give them the right to make up stuff and then get mad at someone like Diane Ravitch (who is on the same side!) for trying to correct the misleading information they posted.
LisaM says:
“For 25-30 yrs we have been fed lies about public education, teachers, failing schools etc and some are pretty angry and on a mission to expose it ALL.”
I feel angry too and want to expose the lies we have been fed. But the way to “expose” lies is to expose the lies, not to post something that is false and then get angry at Diane Ravitch for trying to correct it. One of the reasons I am such a fan of this blog is because I know Diane Ravitch isn’t interested in posting something that isn’t true just to push an agenda she supports. That’s what the OTHER side does!
“Just remember that we EACH have “our own truth” based upon our own life experiences, but that our own truth is part of (and must fit in with) a ” larger/greater collective truth” shared by many.”
I have no idea what you mean about having “our own truth” but it sounds like something Kellyanne Conway would say. The truth is not a “larger/greater collective truth shared by many”. It is simply what is true, and whether “many” choose to believe something that isn’t true is when democracy is most in danger. Fox News watching Trump supporters share “many” false beliefs, but just because they share them does not make them “collective truths”. They are still false beliefs.
I assume all fans of this blog share the belief that supporting real public education is absolutely necessary to democracy. I also thought we shared a commitment to facts. And not “collective truths”, whatever that means.
Ooooo, Diane, not Community Schools with capital letters? No way! I’m surprised that your apparent love of traditional neighborhood schools would have ever lead you to this canned, weirdly attached to shady investors nonsense. Real schools-real teachers for the best for kids. No calculated outside garbage necessary. We heard about this stuff in Denver a few years ago & most of our hackles went up immediately.
🙂 “No calculated outside garbage necessary.”
In Dallas they have hijacked the “community schools” model to use bond dollars for impact investing and pay-for-success models. The non-profits and schools enter into public-private partnerships. When you are in Dallas on April 21, we can chat. Maybe Charlie Johnson can connect us.
A crucial point: the model is so easily pushed into the Pay For Success realm and thus becomes just as dangerous as any other reform invasion.
It seems clear to me that some of the people posting are offering opinions without understanding what a community school in NYC is. What is the point of attacking something else that is NOT a community school in NYC for its’ failings instead of addressing what was done in NYC if it is not to prevent what happened in NYC from happening elsewhere?
This is from an LA Times op ed written by one of the Rand Corporation evaluators:
“The more than 110 schools we studied were among the most disadvantaged in New York. Almost 90% of their students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, compared with the citywide average of about 75%. More than 16% of the student body was homeless or in temporary housing, compared with the citywide average of 9%.
What does one of these schools look like after it becomes a community school?
At an elementary school we visited in the Bronx, the building stayed open into the evenings, offering academic tutoring as well as sports, arts and second-language programs. Likewise, the school was open on Saturdays and during breaks, which helped close gaps in child care for working parents.
Health services included on-site dental care, flu shots and asthma management. More than a third of students were provided eyeglasses. Families also had access to an on-site food bank; legal services; and classes in English, technology and job-hunting skills.
A full-time mental health clinician who worked with teachers and guidance counselors to identify children with mental health needs had a full caseload. Staff and teachers received training in managing classroom behavior, de-escalating crises, bullying, and recognizing anxiety, depression and suicide warnings.”
I can’t imagine why anyone would be so quick to bash the most disadvantaged kids in NYC being given these things and attacking NYC Community Schools without even trying to understand what they are.
In looking at it, I still think it is a data grab. Since FERPA was gutted under Obama, these models are collecting massive amounts of behavioral and mental health data on students through climate surveys and self-efficacy questionnaires. Any time you hear the word promise, it’s usually a one-way promise to privatization. You promise to sign up with them and they make no promises to protect the sensitive data.
The language in the RAND report smells of a performance contract or investment scheme.
You keep posting that but who are the “investors” in this “investment scheme” or “performance contract”?
Are you saying that the taxpaying citizens of NYC are going to get a return on this investment in the schools that teach the most vulnerable, disadvantaged students? Because I agree! We are!
So what is your problem with that, again? I do think that investing lots of money to help the most disadvantaged kids in NYC will pay off in the long run. Only right wingers believe it will not.
NYCPSP: “I do think that investing lots of money to help the most disadvantaged kids in NYC will pay off in the long run. Only right wingers believe it will not.”
The problem is not that some or even “most” kids will benefit–I’m sure some will. The problem is, in a word: “investors.” CBK
It’s ok to use the word “invest” in education without nefarious intent. I have often said our society must triple its investment in education. I was thinking of spending more, not creating money making schemes.
“Invest.” Of course you are right. But that’s where the questions need to start. Intelligent control of tax money, with genuine democratic oversight at the local level and all through governmental agencies, is the better course and hardly a new idea. The fox never gets into the chicken-house by telling the chickens what they are up to but by . . . well, you know about that; and in the longer-view case, it’s commonly social (like racism), political (anti-democratic), and religious (totalitarianism) change that are at the core of their motivations.
And even if some accidental oligarch and their corporate entity is completely well-meaning, their cutting the ties between the democratic political ground and the school system is setting the table for those who come after them who can too-easily be not so well-meaning. CBK
Hi Diane,
Hoping you can look into this-I know you are a supporter of student data privacy.
The RAND report states, “school staff use data regularly to set benchmarks, track progress, and guide programming, both for individual students and for the school as a whole”. Can parents choose WHO has access to this sensitive student data? Can parents opt out if they do not want their child’s mental health assessed by the school? Can NY parents see the data sharing agreements with government agencies, researchers, partners, nonprofits, etc?
Thanks! Cheri K.
Cheri,
The data may be nothing more than grades, which is already known to the school staff. I saw no reason to suspect that “sensitive student data” was being misused.
Big corporations tend not to be beholden to “the people” (or to parents or to the well-being of students) or to democratic/republican principles ensconced in the federal, state, or local Constitutions <–that’s the fundamental point for long-termers.
Also, promises are not nailed down in any way but are trotted out for naive and hopeful parents and politicians. CEO’s change companies, owners die, and corporate mission statements and their policies can change arbitrarily. A good example of this is Mark Z and Facebook. I could go on, but let us remember that corporate lobbyists are aplenty and not for nothing. CBK
Catherine King,
I agree that “investors” would be a bad thing if there WERE investors in the NYC community school initiative. But there aren’t. It wasn’t designed to provide a profit to any investors. It was designed to target extra public funding to the “worst” schools with the absolutely most vulnerable kids out of a population of disadvantaged kids – helping those kids instead of “punishing” them by closing down their schools and telling them they should go to charters where they would all supposedly become high performing scholars (as the previous Bloomberg administration would have done).
I know that programs can get misused, but to be already critical of a program that is clearly doing good because other states have used that word to describe something different seems to be counter to helping those kids.
I don’t get it.
NYCPSP: I’m not blindly bashing. First, I’m reasonably skeptical on the face of it, which means I can read the reports and links with some good and relevant questions in mind.
Also, (see my other note) I’m speaking from the view of structural analysis (a forest-to-the-trees view); and not from the details of any one situation, though the former includes the later because the former is foundational and more comprehensive of the later. CBK
Agree with you, Lynn. NYC public school parent is using a lot of “talking points” that sound like much of the other ed reform jargon and style of “debate”.
Another insightful bit of research: https://wrenchinthegears.com/2019/01/15/what-could-be-wrong-with-the-community-school-model-revisiting-a-november-2015-piece-post-fepa/
CBK,
But why would you be skeptical of pouring resources into a real public school (not a faux “public” charter) that teaches the most vulnerable kids?
Isn’t that what we are all asking for here?
Is the problem the name “Community schools”? If you just heard that Bernie Sanders had decided to give tons of extra resources to the public schools that needed it the most, would you automatically be suspicious of it? That’s exactly the policies that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are running on! Giving lots more resources to the PUBLIC (not charter) schools that teach the most vulnerable children.
It seems like it would be a very bad thing if everyone started questioning how such a policy COULD be misused to gather data on those poor kids. I think that criticism could be used to undermine lots of progressive ideas — especially universal healthcare.
^^^and for all I know, Lynn Davenport and Danielle oppose Bernie Sanders’ universal healthcare program on the same grounds. After all, it “could” be used to collect medical data on every single US resident. The evil “government” would have it all. Just think how they could misuse it for nefarious purposes.
Actually, I expect to hear those right wing arguments non-stop if Bernie Sanders is elected and pushes for Medicare for All.
Lynn,
There is no reference or indication of a “data grab.”
You infer that with no evidence.
Isn’t it reasonable for schools and families to work together to improve student engagement in school?
Sorry, but I don’t see grounds for suspecting a sinister conspiracy and I’m very sensitive to bad vibes from Wall Street and the tech world.
This is the NYC Plan for Community Schools sponsored by MetLife. It’s all about the innovative finance. See page 47. MetLife is partnered with the United Way ALICE (Assets Limited Income Constrained Employed) program – the working poor, the raw material for human capital impact investments. It’s clearly a set up. The whole program has been refined in Harlem Children’s Zone under Stanley Druckenmiller with Paul Tudor Jones’s hedge fund money for over thirty years. They have a whole book of equations setting up the impact metrics for the payouts. The document focuses on Cincinnati, home of Strive Network that came out of Knowledgeworks – the learning ecosystem folks. It seems some of these NYC parents doth protest too much, lol. http://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/de/documents/NCCS_BuildingCommunitySchools.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3qfhvfmbZ8OwBLXq9YgQgtZgDjjALaDpQdk9OV0Inf0J-sIFln7zX-fO8
Screenshot linking “community schools” to “innovative finance” and “public-private partnerships” here: https://wrenchinthegears.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/nyc-community-schools.jpg
Alison,
This is a totally different program. Because you object to theMetlifeprogram is not a reason to object to any and all programs that aim to bring families, children, and communities together.
Enough. We got your point and it’s wrong.
The project in the post is not sponsored by Wall Street or MetLife. It does not threaten to jail parents. It has nothing to do with the trustees on the board of the Harlem Children’s Zone.
Nothing.
It is a Taxpayer funded effort to help children get services they need.
Your wild smears are unwarranted.
It’s like you saying that someone named John Smith committed a crime so never trust anyone named John Smith.
Just stop.
This article outlines the MANY problems with the predatory funders behind so-called “community” schools. Obama gutted FERPA so the data could be more easily harvested in schools for impact investors. https://wrenchinthegears.com/2019/10/22/a-letter-to-chicagos-teachers-on-the-perils-of-pay-for-success-finance-wrap-around-services/
Why do you assume there are “predatory funders” involved in the NYC Project?
I believe it is funded by the NYC municipal government.
You are quick to assume the worst without evidence.
Diane, are you really saying you have no idea what Mr. Canada, Mr. Druckenmiller, and Mr. Tudor Jones have been up to in Harlem all these decades? The whole “wrap around service” as a hedge fund investment was launched in HCZ and is now infecting poor communities nationwide through the Promise Zones and Pay for Success provisions in ESSA. https://wrenchinthegears.com/2019/01/26/stanley-druckenmiller-and-paul-tudor-jones-the-billionaire-networks-behind-harlems-human-capital-lab/
I don’t trust most billionaires. I also don’t share your dark conspiratorial view of the world.
Your comments about “pay for success,” and other profit making schemes have nothing to do with this project.
In Ohio “community school” is the generic name given to a charter school.
Cincinnati has a program of wrap-around services for some of its neighborhood schools. These services are provided by volunteers including some parents, as welll as subcontractors in varied recreational, social services, and health care. The programs are offered at the school in extended days and on weekends. A district staff person manages the program. I know of no systematic evaluation on this program at the scale of the Rand study in NYC. There is an approximation in the Strive Partnership program with multi-tiered support for low income families especially in relation to education in preschools.
I have not yet downloaded and read the whole report from Rand, but I can see why some commentators here are thinking this could be a pilot for pay for success, which (in case you missed it) is now a federal initiative.
Begin quote:
Included in the recently passed Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 was the Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act (SIPPRA). This legislation is the result of more than five years’ worth of efforts by bipartisan lawmakers to create a standing pool of capital to support outcomes based financing.
It builds on the work and learning of the Social Innovation Fund, state level pay for success projects, and the global movement to create social impact bonds. It was also highlighted as a priority in the National Advisory Board on Impact Investing’s report, Private Capital for Public Good.
The enacted legislation provides for a $92 million fund to be housed at the Department of Treasury. It highlights a wide range of outcomes eligible for the program, including improved child and maternal health, reduced homelessness, lowered rates of recidivism and increased youth employment, among others. The key criteria is that outcomes must “result in social benefit and Federal, State, or Local savings.” The Treasury is instructed to publish a request for proposals from states and localities within the next year.
The hope is that by creating this new federal resource to support evidence based policies, states and localities will be encouraged to think about how this type of program can improve outcomes for their communities in need. By supporting programs traditionally funded across numerous federal departments and agencies, it looks to embed evidence based practices throughout the federal government. End quote http://impinvalliance.org/news-updates/2018/2/9/congress-passes-the-social-impact-partnerships-to-pay-for-results-act-sippra
I hope the preceding link helps readers see how the structure of the NYC program could be converted to a Pay for Success model especially if investors find the results compelling and Rand a credible external evaluator. It is also noteworthy that Rand has evaluated some Pay for Success programs in Europe. https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/social-impact-bonds.html
Are you suggesting that Cincinnati should end its program because it could be turned into an investment scheme?
Not at all.
At last count in Cincinnati, 35 of our 52 public schools were designated Cincinnati Community Learning Centers, each with wraparound programming and a coordinator for these services.
Unfortunately many of these centers will also become EdChoice schools with vouchers for students to attend state-approved private schools,. Because most of these state-appoved schools for EdChoice are Catholic or Christian, the EdChoice program could be viewed as a state investment in religious education.
It is no secret that social services in metro areas often compete for clients and funding. Efforts to get some coordinated supports for our district schools (and those in Northern Kentucky) began around 2006 under the leadership of Nancy Zimpher, then President of the University of Cincinnati. Here is an overview of our current Community Learning Centers program. http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/Cincinnati%20Booklet.pdf
The pilot school for wrap-around programming was started over a decade ago at Oyler, a preK-12 school. Oyler has since been troubled by a turnover in school principals and population shifts among families moving into nearby low-income housing. The school began as a haven of sorts for students whose families were from Appalachia. These students were replaced by Black and Latinx families. Over a third of current students (36%) are learning English. Oyler is now among 33 schools where students are eligible for EdChoice Voicers. Here is a link to a PBS story about Oyler school some years ago.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/oyler-school
Other schools have different issues. In one, most of the students are from Mexico and Guatemala. They are learning English and have parents living in fear of deportation. Trump’s policies are not helpful in getting the full benefits from social services and parental engagement.
Meanwhile some very rich and influential citizens have formed an “accelerator” intent on populating the district with more “high performing seats” based on the state’s grim-reaper A-F Report Card metrics and marketing strategies from the charter industry.
This is to say that Cincinnati Public Schools are caught in the middle of many forces, and too many of these are disruptive. Well-intentioned and promising programs are under threat from a misconceived and legislated A-F Report Card and “accountability scheme” foisted on every public school by the Republican-controlled legislature and Department of Public Instruction. Our local school board now has a regional Teach for America administrator, elected in part by a bunch of money from out-of-state, and a couple of deep-pocket donors.
Our local activist group has been focussed on keeping the powers that be downtown from giving away tax money for school to a new professional soccar facility.
My guess is that Cincinnati is not soon going to be out of the woods with all of these forces at play. The good news is that Cincinnati has expanded its “learning center” programming to multiple schools and resisted some clear efforts to make that programming conform to the wishes of KnowledgeWorks, a champion of de-schooling education and computer delivery of instruction.
A-F report cards are a sham.
I wish someone could explain what a high-perfuming seat is. Who manufactures them? How did those chairs get to be so smart? If an F student sits in a high-performing seat, will he or she become an A student? Instead of closing schools, why don’t the districts just buy high performing seats?
Yes, Laura, in Ohio, charter schools are misleadingly called “community schools.” That’s intended to deceive the public.
In the NYC case, the community schools are not charter schools. There are no Social Impact bonds. No one is making a profit.
Diane, this is not about charter schools. These “wrap around” services will be embedded into public schools and incorporated into the portfolio model – outsourced management in ostensibly “public” schools. You should really check out the equations. https://wrenchinthegears.com/2019/01/26/accounting-ledgers-connect-the-dots-from-jamestown-to-harlem-and-beyond/
Wraparound services are a valid effort to provide children with the medical and social services that they need. Do you oppose health clinics? Do you think social workers and psychologists and nurses are part of a sinister plot? Do you think electrodes are implanted in children’s brains by doctors to control their thoughts and make them slaves of Wall Street?
In NYC the community schools are regular public schools, with total collaboration with the teacher union, the models have grown with financial supports from the state and especially from the city. And, yes, external evaluations are commonplace and necessary to seek additonal funding. I have visited a number of community schools, medical and social services embedded into the school, every school should be a community school!!!
The ad hoc negativity saddens me … there are things going on in schools, in neighborhood public schools in partnenrship with teacher unions and local electeds. Lets praise them, try to replicate elsewhere
Thank you! That is what I was trying to say. If so-called supporters of public education are already primed to attack something that is good for public schools – without bothering to find out anything more about it — the far right privatizers have already won.
The RAND report states, “school staff use data regularly to set benchmarks, track progress, and guide programming, both for individual students and for the school as a whole”. Can parents choose WHO has access to this sensitive student data? Can parents opt out if they do not want their child’s mental health assessed by the school? Can NY parents see the data sharing agreements with government agencies, researchers, partners, nonprofits, etc?
NYC Strategic Plan for Community Schools page 28 says: “Data collection and analysis are at the heart of developing and sustaining Community Schools. …and… Data sharing agreements that provide school and non-profit partners with access to key student information to inform programming and gauge progress” https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/communityschools/downloads/pdf/community-schools-strategic-plan.pdf Would love to see who has access to the data, for what purpose, and if parents can opt out.
Obama gutted FERPA for a reason. Anyone who thinks they are “helping” poor children and families by gathering and uploading sensitive information, including mental health screenings, in school settings is sadly misguided.
I agree.George W. Bush started weakening FERPA. Obama and DUNCAN weakened the privacy protections and required states to build data warehouses. DUNCAN was enthusiastic about gathering student data and putting it in a cloud.
That has nothing whatever to do with the NYC project to build community schools that involve families. You are trying to turn the word “community” into a dirty word. That is ridiculous.
It is not ridiculous. You are not releasing all of my comments, and I would like to know why. Why are you picking and choosing which ones you release from moderation?
Let me be clear. I am not posting your comments any more.
Question; Was the destruction of FERPA the model for the user agreements that we have to accept in order to use on line platforms like Facebook and Amazon? Which is chicken, which is egg and which came first?
John Arnold, Zuck, Bloomberg, Gates, Pew heirs, Walton heirs, MacArthur heirs, etc. could input information about their family members into school
and wrap around service databases that end up wherever data for the 99% goes and it would ease minds.
If they are unwilling….
I think the skeptics here are correct. Did anyone look at the advisory board for NYC Community Schools? There are reps from Ford Foundation and Robin Hood Foundation, whose explicit goals are to build “market infrastructure” in the social sectors (including education) that will allow “impact investing” (ie investors get a financial return based on data metrics ) in the future. So, just bc you don’t see Goldman Sachs and the rest involved now, doesn’t meant they aren’t playing a role via these foundations in the infrastructure set up for future investments. This is a theme across many sectors right now and I agree with those posting above that we should be very vigilant and skeptical of initiatives like these, that appear to be extracting data any way they can from
the populations they claim to serve.
Emily,
I am very suspicious of billionaire disrupters destroying the lives of children, teachers and students, and I have published three books warning about the dangers of privatization.
I disagree, however, about a knee jerk rejection of anything that contains the words “community schools” or “partnership.”
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
If you could identify how children are being harmed by a project that creates collaboration between parents and schools and where anyone is turning a profit, I might change my view.
“Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.”
In our time, however, it needs to be shown to be so-just precisely because “doublespeak exists” and too many power people want everyone concerned to NOT follow threads made of of red flags. Questions born of due diligence need to be asked by those who can be trusted and who take responsibility for protecting democracy and our children in it.
That so many assumed everyone loves children and always want to do the right things for all of them (before the active intrusions of business and tech) is how we got here in the first place. With THAT cigar, we always thought it would smoke well, and assumed they would always tell us the truth and do the right thing.
Also, and I say this with tongue in cheek: Freud’s metaphorical reference was NEVER “just that reference.” CBK
Emily says:
“I agree with those posting above that we should be very vigilant and skeptical of initiatives like these…”
I’m sure there are many people happy to generously fund a movement to end the NYC community schools program and push the narrative that the program should be shut down immediately “for the kids”. The people who hate it the most are very rich and very supportive of charter schools (even though the kids in community schools are the ones who their favorite charters would never want to teach.)
The philosophy behind community schools is that there is no magic bullet — including small class sizes — when you are talking about schools that teach the the 5% of kids who are not even as “lucky” as the other 65% of economically disadvantaged students because their parents have an extremely difficult time in even providing them with the basics that they need outside of school.
There were legitimate criticisms of de Blasio’s first efforts at this — he poured money into a program called “Renewal Schools” when the pro-charter politicians insisted they were failures that should be shut down instead. Some of those schools got better, but like any program there were glitches and problems. But I don’t think any of the criticism from those who supported public schools was about how the idea of community schools was very dangerous because data could be compiled on those kids to lead to a privatization movement that would destroy all public education. Or whatever the push to make everyone in NYC “skeptical” of this movement is. I’m sure if you push that skepticism enough there will be a loud call to close down these schools.
I just wish I understood what “skeptics” think should replace this taxpayer funded effort to help the most disadvantaged kids AND their parents if it can’t include any wraparound services for kids for fear that data might be misused even if there is no evidence that it is being misused.
I have to say that I also worry about community schools because in some places charter schools are called community schools. I think the role of the partners should be clearly defined so they don’t remove the citizens from the equation because then it won’t be a public school. I fear community schools can be used in a sneaky way to take public schools over. I worry that’s happening in some places.
I’m skeptical of the following group and their intent.
http://www.communityschools.org/aboutschools/what_is_a_community_school.aspx
Certainly disadvantaged children need wraparound services because no child can learn when they are unwell or troubled. I hope with a new President all children will have access to good health care and social services. That would help.
Mark Naison wrote a great post for my blog a few years ago about what to look for in a good community school. I don’t think he’d mind my sharing it.
Thanks for the interesting link!
Charters also call themselves “public” schools. I always assumed that people here understood that just because charters misuse the term “public”, that did not mean we should embrace the idea that every school that uses the word “public” should be viewed very very skeptically because it was likely to be doing very bad things.
Mark Naison’s post is interesting and he points out that charter schools also co-opted the term “community schools” and it means something very different than when public schools call themselves community schools. But Naison certainly does not encourage the public to be immediately skeptical of PUBLIC schools that are community schools and assume that public schools have the same very bad motives as charter community schools. Naison isn’t encouraging the public to be very skeptical of public community schools and encouraging the public to treat all public community schools with the utmost skepticism until someone can prove to their satisfaction (which is basically impossible) that they aren’t part of privatization plot.
Naison writes:
“Bringing back the original ideal of Community schools, along with curricula which incorporate community traditions and cultures, is one of the best responses public school advocates can make to the Corporate sponsored charter school offensive.”
“The only way to challenge this effort and prevent Corporate reformers from hijacking and derailing the Community schools movement, is to spell out the differences between public community schools and charters which take some elements of the community school concept and reject others.”
I thought Diane Ravitch tried in many posts to spell out the differences and explain that the NYC community schools were public schools and not charters and I kept reading and angry replies by people who kept saying that we should be skeptical of ALL schools that use the term “community school” even if they are public schools. They were attacking the very notion of community schools period. That approach seemed to be exactly the opposite of what Naison’s column is about.
“Community schools were not just intended to be institutions which provide wrap around services; they were intended to be centers of democratic education and community empowerment …..Those are the kinds of schools we need. Those are the kind of schools we still must fight for.”
Now if I saw some criticism from Naison that he thinks that the NYC public community school program was doing bad things, I would take it very seriously. But that isn’t what people were posting — they were questioning the legitimacy of the very notion of a public school that was a community school. Because the wraparound services and data gathered was dangerous. Or because someone from the Ford Foundation was among 30+ people on an advisory board and the Ford Foundation wants to privatize NYC public schools.
Maybe Naison will weigh in here as I would be interested in hearing his POV. I am sure there are lots of things to criticize in the implementation of the NYC program, but having criticism of the implementation is different than believing that NYC established public community schools in order to help privatize public education and steal kids’ data and we should assume that there is an evil intent behind the NYC public community school initiative unless and until someone can prove to us that there isn’t an evil intent.
I’m glad you appreciate Naison’s post, but please also look at the link to the Coalition of Community Schools which I have seen advertised on T.V.
Maybe everything is fair and just in NYC and your community schools will still be public schools, but corporations co-opting public education around the country is a threat. It raises a lot of questions about how our schools will be run in the future and the what corporate impact there will be on learning.
I am never clear about the teacher’s role in community schools. Who controls curriculum? Where do academics fit? And will a computer replacing a teacher be acceptable?
Can corporations be an enemy to public education and a friend? Can we distrust them when it comes to Bill Gates, but be o.k. with another corporation taking over a school?
How much say should partners get about how a school is run when it’s their money funding the school? What are their motives? When do public schools cease to be public?
And what about the data?
I also find it difficult to believe that Sanders or Warren would trust our schools to corporations. I don’t understand that argument. Maybe I misunderstand.
Please follow closely and continue to share how community schools unfold in NYC. Time always has a way of showing us the truth. I hope it works out.
nancyebailey About this: “I also find it difficult to believe that Sanders or Warren would trust our schools to corporations. I don’t understand that argument. Maybe I misunderstand.”
As with Obama’s educational record, I have trouble with that one also. I can only think they just haven’t gotten into the “weeds” of the problem and delegated it to a misinformed staffer or a reformer mole.
The missing insights are the answers to the thoughtful questions in your post; however, I think the biggest missing insight is the one that would secure their understanding about the inherent intimate relationship between (1) a democratic political system and its ethos and (2) the education of its “we the people” (all of us) who need to know what it means to live in one. (I notice you question about curriculum in your note–that, to me, is the big issue.)
It seems to me that so many are thinking on the level of the “trees” rather than the “forest.” Some children (“mine in particular”) are getting a good or even a better education (for whatever reason). “What’s wrong with that?”
Also, so many have heard the 30-year dissing of public schools, teachers, unions, etc. for so long that it’s “stuck” in the minds of those who never really thought about it, or just automatically believed the din of propaganda about what they were hearing from the “reformers.”
I think if those you name (and Obama) heard the right argument, they’d easily take the meaning from it. CBK
Please name the corporations involved in NYC’s community schools initiative.
Hello Diane: I haven’t read the linked article.
I AM raising what I think are the right questions that, in out time (and from being on this blog for a long time), need to be raised in ANY educational situation, and for any program, regardless of its name.
Also, such questions need to be systematized and made into working (watchdog-type) policy, again, in an environment when we KNOW about, in true Orwellian fashion, reformers absconding with terms (like “choice” and “public,” “freedom” and now “community”); and of other nefarious and well-funded, sheep’s-clothing methods of those who are hell-bent on the destruction of all-thing-public. I haven’t see a limit to what they will do to get what they want. I don’t believe all are fascist, but they are certainly playing around the edges of its playbook.
Also, again, I don’t know about THIS public school and probably won’t read about it, though I’ll try to make time for it. My point, and I think it’s a legitimate one, is that, if we’ve learned anything, it’s that (as several here have related) naive trust has gone out the window–and good riddance because it’s loss usually ushers in a new era of well-grounded questions that, when it’s warranted, CAN lead to good criticism for keepers of the democratic realm, so to speak.
And let me be clear here again: Raising authentic questions is not the same as “raising suspicions.” One is welcomed by authentic leaders in the education community (like the leaders of this NYC community school, if you are right about them, and I hope you are); while the other (dogmatic suspicions or empty accusations) only raises defensive hackles and, in fact, is antithetical to keeping the razor’s edge sharp in those who understand what’s at stake here and, again, welcome authentic questioning.
Finally I cannot read every link that comes up here but, still, the notes often reveal a substantial relationship to my own field of research. My offerings here are mostly of a philosophical nature and come from having studied and taught the philosophy of education and the general nature of political structures. If that doesn’t qualify my contributions, then say so, and I’ll be glad to leave the blog. CBK
CBK,
I value your voice. Don’t even think of leaving.
Diane . . . not as much as I appreciate your work in our community of educators. And my participation here, and your constant presence, make me feel a bit less helpless in the face of such powerful bad actors. CBK
You are not alone.
I appreciate Naison’s post because he explained that all schools that call themselves “community” schools were not the same, just all schools that call themselves “public” are not the same.
Naison has the same fears of NON-PUBLIC community schools that you do but he isn’t trashing the community schools program in PUBLIC schools. On the contrary, he is distinguishing between the two.
Do you even accept the basic premise of Naison’s piece, which is that public community schools are not the same as community schools run by private interests?
If you do, I don’t understand why you would ask questions like this: “How much say should partners get about how a school is run when it’s their money funding the school?” Do you understand that the only people funding the NYC community schools are taxpayers? Your question would be appropriate for a privately operated school that calls itself a “community” school, but if you read Naison’s article you would see that what Diane Ravitch is talking about is one of the public community schools that Naison supports.
“I also find it difficult to believe that Sanders or Warren would trust our schools to corporations. I don’t understand that argument. Maybe I misunderstand.”
Again, did you even read Naison’s piece? I assumed you had. The entire point of his piece is that in PUBLIC schools, community schools aren’t being “trusted to corporations”. Sanders and Warren believe in the premise of PUBLIC community schools. Which is different than believing in privately operated community schools that are charters.
You linked to an interesting article by Naison that was all about not confusing the idea of public schools having taxpayer funded community schools — which he strongly advocates for — and the non-public community schools that have been co-opted by the ed reform privatizers.
Naison explained the difference between the two ideas so I am flummoxed that you seem to be doing exactly what his article was designed to stop readers from doing! He knows that it helps the far right privatizers who want people to intentionally confuse the two ideas and conclude that every school that is called a “community school” – whether it is a public school using taxpayer dollars or a charter school using corporate dollars – is the same.
Think of “community” the way you think of “public”. Just because a privately operated school calls itself a “public charter” does mean that we who support REAL public schools should start demanding that all schools that call themselves “public schools” (which includes every single public school) be looked on skeptically as being run for corporate interests.
There are criticisms to be made of “public charters”. But it does terrible damage to real public schools if the criticism is that any school that uses the word “public” is the same and they should all be viewed skeptically because supporting out local public school means “trusting corporations” since they are just like “public” charters.
^sorry for the typo in first paragraph:
“…all schools that call themselves “community” schools were not the same, just LIKE all schools that call themselves “public” are not the same.
NYCPSP: “…all schools that call themselves ‘community’ schools were not the same, just LIKE all schools that call themselves ‘public’ are not the same.”
A True Orwellian insight. . . . CBK
CBK,
I urge you to read the link that Nancy Bailey posted — she called it a “great post”.
The title of that post is:
“How REAL Community Schools Differ from Charters Who Adopt that Label”
(FYI, a REAL Community school is a public school that uses taxpayer dollars to help the families whose kids attend that school. It is run by and for the community. Diane Ravitch’s post was about a real community school – a public school with union teachers and public oversight just like every real (non-charter) NYC public school has. )
NYCPSP: I think that’s great. Do read my response to Diane. Thanks. CBK
“Do you understand that the only people funding the NYC community schools are taxpayers?”
No. I am talking about community schools that do have corporate partners.
I must have misunderstood. If there are no corporate partners, then I guess all is well.
holy cow!
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Billionaires ARE taking over school boards and privatization everything from the military to airports to schools.
DeVos and her cronies waste taxpayer millions on never-opened charters and obliterate civil rights protections.
The president goes so far as putting us on the brink of a freaking war to boost his image and deflect a hearing.
We’ve got enough bad stuff going on that we don’t need narrow minded conspiracy theories to decimate the good stuff because it does feel like your 1950s version of school.
The world if falling apart – including education – some of you all are debating the definition of a community school. Seriously?
Those big bad community schools? Oh – it might be a charter (there are some good independent charters, uh, remember Al Shanker?) so it must be bad. Oh – it might be funded by Met Life who studied teacher efficacy and researched teachers which turned into teacher evaluation that included test scores so oh, Met LIfe must be a bad company and is a conspiracy to get rid of unions so if they are connected to community schools they must be bad.
Have any of you VISITED a community school?
Have you driven / walked through a bullet ridden neighborhood that has a, wait for it, community school, as a haven for kids and a place where parents and caregivers can meet with social workers?
Have you been to a community school where the local electricity providers meet with parents/ caregivers to assist with money management and budgeting instead of just turning off their electricity when a bill is overdue?
Have you been to a community school that partners with local hospitals, social services, uniform providers, NON PROFIT AGENCIES, FAITH COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS, community organizations (these ain’t billionaires or privatizers) and on and on so that the school becomes the one safe and truly “community center” in a food island / torn neighborhood?
When you have – then take your shots if you still have any.
I’m not sure if the right response is “lighten up” or “take a hike” – but if everything is a conspiracy and you think Dr. Ravitch is anything but fair, objective, thankfully outspoken – i’ll go for the latter – find a different blog to spew.
Thank you, Wait, WHAT. A welcome note of sanity.
Wow was this thread invaded by aliens or what? All I learned from the rash of skepticism was, be on the alert: this NYC program could be taken over & converted for hedge-funder et al profit-making. OK, thanks. But ya gotta start somewhere to do that thingie we’ve been talking about for yrs, making needy public schools a neighborhood hub for wrap-around social & med services. The NYC program is a good start, & let’s keep our eye on the ball. Let’s try to find out, e.g., precisely what student data is being tracked & to what end.
And let’s watch very closely for when the other shoe drops, i.e., [from end of WaPo article]: “But raising test scores may require more direct improvements to teaching, said James Kemple, executive director of the Research Alliance for New York City Schools at New York University. He said evidence from the study is encouraging enough to continue the program but said the city may need to be more realistic about what is needed to increase academic performance.” This will most likely be the fox’s attempted entry into the henhouse.
Forget the test scores.
Research Alliance for N.Y.C. Schools, funded by Gates, Arnold, Walton heirs,….