Archives for category: Harlem Success Academy

Andrea Gabor is the Michael Bloomberg Professor of business journalism at Baruch College of the City University of New York. She is also a deeply knowledgeable scholar of corporate education reform. She debunked the alleged “New Orleans miracle” in the New York Times.

In this post, she expresses her concern about the fawning praise for Eva Moskowitz’s charter schools and explains why Eva’s charter schools are not a model for public education.

She writes:

It is we—that is American citizens—who should be terrified because Success Academy is entirely in-sync with the Trump era. It is unapologetically anti-democratic, anti-union, segregated and relentlessly test-driven. And, it should be noted, the CMO has not yet graduated a single high school student.

At a time when we are facing an existential threat to our democracy—one enabled by a decades-long obsession with standardized tests that narrowed curriculum and helped kill off civics education—the championing of Success Academy by writer as influential as Elizabeth Green, she is the founding editor of ChalkBeat and author of Building a Better Teacher, is worrying indeed.

Let’s be clear. Judging by its roster of 46 schools, there are potentially thousands of families who are happy with the education Success Academy provides, and many more who might have been if they had won the network’s lottery—though parents have complained of the CMO’s harsh, and even abusive, ‘boot-camp-like” culture—see here and here. Indeed, hundreds, if not thousands of children have been pulled out by their families (or forced out) because of the network’s strict demands for behavioral compliance and its single-focused pursuit of high test scores…

But Green fails to address key questions about the kind of education Success kids get—and at what cost. She certainly doesn’t question whether the ever-changing, bubble-in test-scores are the best—or even a good–measure of learning. While she acknowledges giving up on democratic control of schools and districts, she never considers the historic, foundational role of public education in a democracy—and the civic cost of autocratic education systems. Nor does Green consider the successful public-school networks amid what she, rightly, describes as the crushing bureaucracy that has often stifled New York City schools—even though she has published stories about them!

Green also glosses over—and, in some cases, omits entirely—the considerable problems with the Success Academy model, including widespread creaming and credible allegations of abusive behavior toward children. Although Green’s own book points out that the best teachers have years of experience, she says not one word about Success Academy’s high teacher attrition rate. Some Success Academy schools lose over half of their teachers each year; few last more than three years.

Gabor writes that there are excellent models within public education of success, and she refers specifically to the New York Performance Standards Consortium, which has used a progressive model of education with great results.

Gabor despairs of those who think that democracy is the problem, and charter schools are the answer. To give up on democracy is to fall into the snare of the Trump agenda. Let the authoritarian leader solve all problems.

Why anyone believes that a strict authoritarian school is just right for all or most American children is a puzzle. It may be right for some, but it is not a model for public education.

Eva Moskowitz loves to fight. She is doing it “for the kids.” She loves to defy authority. She enjoys facing off against the mayor and knocking him flat. She likes to break dishes and make noise. She sees herself as the ultimate rule-breaker, the epitome of defiance against the people in charge.

Writing in the New York Times, Lisa Miller of “New York” magazine reviews Eva’s memoir and puts her finger on the central paradox of the woman and her charter chain: How could Eva celebrate her own defiance while running schools built on the principle of unquestioning obedience to authority? How long would Eva have lasted in one of her own schools?

Miller finds the author unable to reflect on her life or her work. She is right and her critics are wrong, and she has the test scores to prove it.

“The Education of Eva Moskowitz” advertises itself as memoir, but it does not deliver on what memoirs promise, which is to say, self-revelation. Indeed, it hardly offers any kind of revelation at all. This is a shame, because the super-politicized world of education policy could use a sympathetic interpreter right now. Are charter schools the ultimate evil or the optimal solution? Do teachers’ unions protect kids or preserve entitlements? Are standardized tests useful, or are they racist, classist and corrosive to morale? There are no right (or single) answers to these questions, but a smart memoir from a passionate and iconoclastic advocate for children might serve as one insightful guide through the morass.

“Moskowitz is not the person for this job. Her instinct is to be adamant (and the inverse, thin-skinned). She is adamantly in favor of standardized tests. She is adamantly against teachers’ unions. She believes that a recent movement toward “community schools,” in which poor kids can get medical, nutritional and other services at school, is “nonsense,” and she rebuts the whole concept with an example of a Success student who was “hospitalized with a stroke but able to do her homework….”

“The Success Academy schools have been very successful in certain ways for certain kids, but unless their founder can talk clearly and sympathetically about the tangle of dysfunctions besetting public schools — including segregation, poverty, class, inequality, the effects of wealthy donors and unions on the education system and the disparate expectations of the stakeholders within it — she will always be just a local crusader with a chip on her shoulder.”

Here are two of my favorite bloggers, reacting to the same article: Elizabeth Green on Eva Moskowitz.

Elizabeth Green in co-founder, CEO, and editor-in-chief of Chalkbeat, which covers education in several cities. Chalkbeat is funded by the Gates Foindatuon, the zwalton Family Foundation, and several others.

I would describe the article as loving. Peter sees it as worshipful. Mercedes says it is perplexing.

Read it yourself and come up with your own adjective.

Peter Greene read Elizabeth Green’s worshipful portrayal of Eva Moskowitz and commented in his inimitable stye.

This is the short summary:

In the end, Green seems ready to dump Democracy, scrap public schools, and elevate an autocratic Beloved Leader CEO charter system. In a way, it’s fitting that in an era in which some people are willing to turn to a one-person authoritarian form of the Presidency under Beloved Leader Trump, some folks will also yearn for the same system for schools, arguing that she may be a dictator, she may be autocratic, she may require the suspension of Democracy, but I think she means well, and she makes the trains run on time. Just don’t look too closely at where the train is running or exactly who gets to ride on board.

What surprised me was that in her fulsome praise for Eva and charter schools, Green makes no mention of the NAACP report calling for a charter moratorium or EdNext’s poll showing plummeting support for charter schools in only the last year or the cascading number of charter frauds and scandals. It is a very rosy and one-sided picture that she paints.

Mercedes Schneider sees a somewhat more nuanced article.

“The piece reads as if it were written by two people: One who is impressed with Moskowitz and her schools (and who perhaps wishes to please Moskowitz with this article), and another who sees the problems of the likes of Moskowitz continuing to expand a hedge-funded, education empire that could buy its way to doing whatever it so desires– with the term, “whatever” holding dark and damaging overtones.

“Green might have been trying to include both pros and cons of Moskowitz and a Moskowitz-styled education, but the concerns Green expresses cannot be reasonably reconciled with the language of admiration included in the selfsame article.”

Mercedes sees an undertone of worry and concern in the article.

What do you think?

Jan Resseger read Rebecca Mead’s article about Success Academy charter schools and wondered: Can a no-excuses tightly-disciplined school be considered progressive?

“Mead’s subtitle names a contradiction at the center of Moskowitz’s educational theory: “Inside Eva Moskowitz’s Quest to Combine Rigid Discipline with a Progressive Curriculum.” Even as Moskowitz defends the rigid and punitive discipline for which her schools are famous (In Mead’s piece, Moskowitz is quoted as defending the suspension of young children out of school as an important way of impressing a lesson on children and their parents.), Moskowitz claims John Dewey, the father of progressive education, as a guide to what happens in her schools. Moskowitz describes her curriculum as an example of progressivism—“circle time on the classroom rug; interdisciplinary projects that encompass math, science, social studies, and literacy.” The question that underlies Mead’s analysis is whether it is possible to run a progressive school with no-excuses discipline.

“While on one level Mead entertains Moskowitz’s rhetoric about progressivism, Mead seems puzzled by the circle time on the classroom rug: “In the second-grade classroom in Queens, the gridded rug seemed less like a magic carpet than like a chessboard at the start of a game. Within each square there was a large colored spot the size of a chair cushion. The children sat in rows, facing forward, each within his or her assigned square, with their legs crossed and their hands clasped or folded in their laps. Success students can expect to be called to answer a teacher’s question at any moment, not just when they raise their hand, and must keep their eyes trained on the speaker at all times, a practice known as ‘tracking.’ Staring off into space, or avoiding eye contact is not acceptable.”

“Like students at progressive schools (and all kinds of public schools, actually), students in Success Academies go on field trips. And Mead visits a room where Kindergardeners are taken to play with blocks: “The school has dedicated a special classroom to the activity, and shelves were filled with an enviable supply of blocks. The walls of the room were decorated with pictures of architectural structures that the students might seek to emulate, from the Empire State Building to the Taj Mahal. There was also a list of rules: always walk; carry two small blocks or hug one large block; speak in a whisper.” Unlike free-play at progressive early childhood centers—with dolls, and blocks, and easels and paint, and clay or PlayDoh—block time at the school Mead visits is a specific activity provided by the school in a “block” room to which the entire class of children is led for an assigned period.”

What makes a school “progressive?”

Why is Eva Moskowitz eager to be called “progressive”?

Can “progressive” pedagogy flourish in an atmosphere of authoritarian discipline?

Most articles about Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter schools report on her political ambitions, her love of combat with unions and critics, her ability to attract the generous support of billionaires.

Rebecca Mead writes here about the pedagogy of Success Academy charter schools. It is a weird combination of strict discipline and progressive instruction. The question is whether these two divergent approaches can co-exist.

These are schools where student behavior is monitored closely, and the smallest infractions are punished swiftly.

Can Deweyism flourish in a repressive environment?

A Success Academy classroom is a highly controlled, even repressive, place. In some classrooms that I observed, there were even expectations for how pencils should be laid down when not in use: at Springfield Gardens, the pencils had all been placed to the right of the desks, aligned with the edge. The atmosphere can be tense, and sometimes tips over into abuse, as was documented by the Times last year. The newspaper obtained a video that had been recorded secretly by an assistant teacher. It showed a teacher berating a first-grade girl who had made an error on her math worksheet, ripping up the sheet, and sending the child to sit in a “Calm Down” chair. Moskowitz has insisted that the event was an outlier, but the teacher in the video was an experienced educator who had been considered an exemplar of the Success Academy approach. Among some Success teachers, “rip and redo” was a term of art…

At some Success Academy schools, as many as twenty per cent of students are suspended at least once during the academic year. Moskowitz calls suspension “one tool in the toolkit,” and says that most occur during the first weeks of school, when students haven’t yet assimilated the school’s expectations. “I think some people have a fairly idealized view of the kind of language that even young children can use,” she told me. “We have young children who threaten to kill other people. And, yes, they are angelic, and, yes, we love them, but I think when you are outside schooling it is hard to imagine.” According to data from the New York State Education Department, three years ago, when Success Academy Springfield Gardens was starting up and had only kindergartners and first graders, eighteen per cent of the students were suspended at least once. It’s entirely believable that lots of children between the ages of four and seven found it impossible to meet the school’s stringent behavioral expectations. But it’s also fair to wonder whether, if one out of five young children cannot comply with the rules, there might not be something wrong with the rules….

But, even as Success seeks to inculcate its students with its strict behavioral codes, Moskowitz has embraced certain teaching methods that would not seem out of place in a much more permissive environment. Surprisingly, she cites John Dewey as an important influence on her thinking, and she champions hands-on science labs, frequent field trips, and long stretches of time for independent reading. Moskowitz has recruited as a consultant Anna Switzer, the former principal of P.S. 234, a highly regarded public school, in Tribeca. Before Switzer retired from P.S. 234, in 2003, she developed a progressive social-studies curriculum in which students undertake months-long projects on, say, the native populations that originally lived on Manhattan Island. At Success Academy, Switzer has been helping to build similar “modules,” such as an intensive six-week study, in the third grade, of the Brooklyn Bridge. For kindergartners, Success offers a six-week interdisciplinary study of bread. After students read about bread and baking—the importance of bread in different global cultures; the grains that go into making various breads—they take a field trip to a bakery, and bake bread as a classroom activity. Success modules remain heavy on reading and writing, Switzer acknowledges: when the kindergartners study bread, “shared texts” play a more prominent role than they would at a very progressive public school. Still, the curriculum for these projects belies the stereotype of Success as a rigid test-prep factory. “Being a progressive pedagogue is hard,” Moskowitz told me. “Your level of preparation has to be much higher, because you have to be responsive to the kids, and you have to allow the kid to have the eureka moment, while still mastering the material.”
Adding to the difficulty of implementing such ideals is the youth and relative inexperience of Success’s staff. On average, a school loses a quarter of its teachers every year; at some schools, more than half leave. Moskowitz told me that teachers typically stay with Success for just three years. This may be consistent with the job-hopping habits of millennials, but according to veteran educators it generally takes at least three years to become a decent teacher. An unseasoned workforce is not Moskowitz’s ideal, but, given the rapid growth of Success and the network’s projected expansion, it may be a structural inevitability. The system compensates for the inexperience of many of its teachers by having a highly centralized organization. Teachers do not develop their own lesson plans; rather, they teach precisely what the network demands. Like the students in their classrooms, Success’s teachers operate within tightly defined boundaries, with high expectations and frequent assessment….

One of the core tenets of John Dewey’s educational philosophy was the belief that, in school, children learn not only the explicit content of lessons but also an implicit message about the ideal organization of society. A school, he argued, was a civilization in microcosm. “I believe that the school must represent present life—life as real and vital to the child as that which he carries on in the home, or the neighborhood, or on the playground,” Dewey wrote in “My Pedagogic Creed,” which was published in 1897. The society for which the child was being prepared should not be conceived of as an abstraction from the remote future, Dewey believed. It should be replicated, in simplified form, within the structure and culture of the school itself.

“A school should be a model of what democratic adult culture is about,” Deborah Meier, a veteran progressive educator, and a theorist in the tradition of Dewey, told me. “Most of what we learn in life we learn from the company we keep. What is taught didactically is often forgotten.” A corollary of Dewey’s belief is that, if children are exposed in school to an authoritarian model of society, that is the kind of society in which they may prefer to live.

The question posed by the article, left unanswered, is whether a rigid and even repressive culture can be combined with a progressive approach to pedagogy, and whether these classrooms are the best preparation for life in a democratic society.

What can we learn from the Success Academy model? Its students get the highest test scores in the state.

This year, a Success high school, on Thirty-third Street, will produce the network’s first graduating class: seventeen students. This pioneering class originated with a cohort of seventy-three first graders.

So, seventeen out of an entering cohort of 73 first-graders survived to graduation. What does that mean?

White billionaire Dan Loeb likes to hector black people about their duty towards children who are black and brown. He is an exemplar of white privilege. He is chair of the board of Success Academy, which sifts and sorts the children it wants and tosses the others back to public schools. It has remarkably high scores because most of the children it accepts drop out or are pushed out.

Loeb likes to lecture black officials. He compared the black Democratic leader of the State Senate to the Ku Klux Klan and said she was worse.

Now it has been revealed that he has sent hectoring emails to a black deputy mayor in the DeBlasio administration, in a supercilious condescending effort to educate him about the superiority of charter schools. Loeb accused the deputy mayor of pulling strings to get his child into a popular neighborhood public middle school, a charge first leveled by Rupert Murdoch’s NY Post.

Loeb thinks the city should give Eva Moskowitz as many schools as she wants, rent-free. Loeb is contemptuous of the public schools that enroll 90% of the children. With his billions, Success Academy could pay its own way. It is a chain created for gifted children of color—willing to conform to SA rules without question—that dares to call itself a “model” for all public schools.

Dan Loeb has a problem with black adults. He likes to lecture them on their duties to their race. He is the personification of colonialism and paternalism. He is also a demonstration of why tax rates for the .01% are too low.

Sadly, the DeBlasio administration just gave Success Academy another 1,000 seats, expanding its little but well-funded empire.

The city public schools enroll 1.1 Million students. Success Academy will grow to 16,000 students.

And another billionaire, Julian Robertson, just gave the SA chain $20 Million to “share its lessons.”

Lessons: select the best, push out the rest.

I wish Success Academy would take responsibility for one very impoverished district in New York City—every student, no exceptions—and show everyone how to work its magic.

A regular reader of the Blog who calls herself or himself “New York City Public School Parent” decided to fact check Eva Moskowitz’s claim that she does not cherrypick the students at her Success Academy charter chain. Like NYCPSP, I have long been troubled by the media’s tendency to accept test scores on state tests without considering such important questions as demographics (Does she really enroll the same proportion of students with disabilities, including serious disabilities, as nearby public schools? The same proportion of English learners?), attrition (what percent of the students who are enrolled in third grade remain until eighth grade?). On another thread, NYCPSP pointed out that 87:000 economically disadvantaged students In grades 3rd through 8th grade scored proficient or above on the NY State Math exam. “To put that in perspective — Those 87,000 3rd through 8th grade students living in poverty who attend NYC public schools who score proficient and above is more than 4 times the TOTAL 3rd through 8th grade population of the entire Boston Public School system.” Thus, if a charter school or chain chooses carefully and removes the laggards, It can produce spectacular results.

She/he writes:

“Moskowitz urges those who would “try to explain away our results” to consider Bronx 2, a school in the network whose demographics are similar to nearby PS 55. Yet this is a misleading suggestion, because an overall comparison shows that Success still serves fewer students from both groups and therefore can maintain higher scores.”

“In my opinion, this is the big lie. Moskowitz’ challenges people to “explain away our results” but critics don’t spend the time to gather the numbers and figures from the NYSED data website that would allow them to debunk this great lie. Bronx 2 doesn’t have “similar demographics to PS 55” and it doesn’t have similar demographics to Bronx District 9 where it is supposed to draw its students.

“It is easy to check the data at NYSED. On the state math tests, only 259 of the 413 Success Academy Bronx 2 students taking the state math tests were economically disadvantaged. That’s 63%. It is a shockingly low figure when you consider that Bronx 2 serves the students in Bronx District 9, where over 90% of the students taking the state exams were economically disadvantaged.

“And at nearly PS 55, which Moskowitz claims has similar demographics, over 92% of the students taking the state math test were economically disadvantaged! PS 55 serves even MORE of its’ share of the very poorest students while Success Academy Bronx 2 teaches 30% fewer poor students than they should be teaching. It takes a special chutzpah for Eva Moskowitz to claim Bronx 2 serves similar demographics. But she is smug in her knowledge that journalists almost never bother to analyze the data themselves. Instead her critics use unconvincing vague arguments “she doesn’t serve her share of special needs kids” which Moskowitz loves because she can easily dismiss it as “but that doesn’t even begin to explain my 99% passing rates”.

“Moskowitz can’t explain away the extraordinarily low number of poor students she serves in districts that have over 90% poor students that easily.

“And that very low % of economically disadvantaged students in Bronx 1 should have been a huge red flag whenever a journalist reports on a charter network who justifies its expansion by their claim of wanting to teach at-risk students failed by public schools.

“Here is the second red flag that journalists ignore:

“Despite Eva Moskowitz convincing lots of affluent white folks that getting 259 poor students in Bronx District 9 to pass a state test is a “miracle”, it turns out that in the District 9 pool from which she draws students there were 2,777 economically disadvantaged students passing state math tests who were taught in underfunded public schools. That is TEN TIMES the number of proficient students in the surrounding District 9 public schools than at Success Academy Bronx 2. There are too many truly ignorant and racist Success Academy cheerleaders who act as if there are no high performing children among the economically disadvantaged so how could Moskowitz cherry pick enough to fill her school? But that is another great lie that she gets away with. There are 10 times as many very poor students doing well in the public schools surrounding her district. It is just that they are not concentrated in a single, very rich charter school.

“Now how do we know that Eva Moskowitz cherry picks those few hundred economically disadvantaged students in SA Bronx 2 from among the thousands of proficient students? Because of Moskowitz own actions.

“Some of Moskowitz’ longest wait lists are in the Bronx. But in that very poor District 9 where her single Success Academy school has nearly 1/3 fewer poor students than it should have, has she opened a second school to address this great need for good schools?

“The answer is, of course, that Moskowitz still has only ONE school in all of District 9. One of the poorest NYC districts, and she has only one school.

“Compare that to District 2, Manhattan, one of the very richest districts where Moskowitz’ first two schools served MORE middle class and affluent students than economically disadvantaged ones. Guess where Moskowitz just located a 3rd school? District 2. What about all those poor kids stuck in failing schools in the Bronx where she challenged critics to prove that she could have possibly have cherry picked her students?

“But Moskowitz could very easily could and did cherry pick students in Bronx 2 and the fact that she has 3 times as many schools that give priority to the students who live in one of the richest NYC school districts than schools that give priority to the students who live in one of the poorest demonstrates exactly how ridiculous her claims that she doesn’t cherry pick really are. If she didn’t cherry pick and believed her own lies that she is doing this for poor kids trapped in failing schools, she would have 3 times as many schools in Bronx District 9 than she has in Manhattan District 2. Not the other way around.

“I wish a journalist would ask her to her face why she keeps opening new schools in rich districts where her wait lists are shortest.

“The very few times that a journalist does their research and asks a follow-up question — as John Merrow did in that PBS report — Eva Moskowitz sputters and shifts and looks like a liar. That should be happening every time she is interviewed by a journalist. Instead they just let her get away with her dishonest premises as she did here when she claims Bronx 2 shows that she is a miracle worker! Without her schools not a single poor kid in the entire district would ever get a good education. The fact that there are 10x as many District 9 public school students doing as well as her far less disadvantaged cherry picked group is never ever mentioned and she gets away with that very big lie. Without the need to squirm and prevaricate and look like the dishonest person she is during the John Merrow interview.

“It’s nice to have everyone accept your dishonest premise when you are promoting yourself as the savior. Eva Moskowitz feels very good because she knows that very few journalists ever bother to do their homework. They read the press releases and ask a question and write down her “response to critics” without including the data that shows just how much of an outright lie her claims were. It’s similar to the reporting we saw during the campaign where Trump would say so many outright lies and the reporters would say “but the other side says this” and leaves the public to think that the truth is a matter of opinion and not fact.

“There are reams of data that prove that Success Academy cherry picks. I didn’t even mention Success Academy’s own commissioned 2017 MDRC study that buried a few very inconvenient facts in footnotes. Do you know that in this charter school that parents are supposedly desperate to send their children, half the lottery winners don’t enroll their kids? “Of the lottery winners in the sample (both kindergarten and first-grade entrants), about 82 percent attended a welcome meeting. Approximately 61 percent of lottery winners attended student registration, 54 percent attended a uniform fitting, and 50 percent attended a dress rehearsal. With few exceptions, lottery winners who did not attend an activity did not attend subsequent activities. Ultimately, about 50 percent of lottery winners enrolled in Success Academy schools in the 2010-2011 school year.”

“Mysteriously – throughout all those “pre-enrollment” meetings – Success loses an extraordinarily number of students. 82% of those parents desperate for the great SA education attended an enrollment meeting but only 61% attend student registration. And then Success loses another chunk of students who registered and only 50% make it to the first day of school.

“The fact that Success Academy’s documented attrition rate — which includes ONLY those 50% of lottery winning students whose parents didn’t give out their supposedly coveted spots after attending during those pre-enrollment meetings — is STILL higher than almost every other charter network in NYC should also be a huge red flag. Even among the most motivated families who stick it out through all the pre-enrollment meetings, Success still rids themselves of a number that SHOULD make every journalist and certainly their oversight agency ask questions.

“The data shows exactly how Success Academy cherry picks. The fact that Moskowitz gets away with that challenge shows how little journalists understand the data.”

Megan Erickson, a journalist and teacher in the New York City public schools, reviews Eva Moskowitz’s memoir in The Nation.

The title: The Miseducation of Eva Moskowitz.

This is a valuable review to share with friends who are not familiar with Eva’s strategies: cherrypicking students, high attrition rates, high teacher turnover, disciplining and suspending those she wants to get rid of, cultivating billionaires, boasting that her methods are scalable when they are not, and so on.

The great lie that Erickson fastens on is that Eva, like others in the charter industry, like to pretend that going to a charter school is an escalator to the middle class, but what they refuse to confront is the social and economic inequality that keeps a few at the top, and a great many at the bottom. Schools can’t fix that, no matter how hard they push “no excuses.”

A large group of parents wrote a letter of complaint to Eva Moskowitz about the harsh discipline at their Success Academy school in her new space, which appears to attract a white, middle-class enrollment. They objected to the no-excuses code, which they say broke their children’s spirit.

Here is the parents’ letter.

https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2017/10/hudson-yards-success-charter-parents-to.html

A group of parents at Eva Moskowitz’s New $68 Million flagship Success Academy don’t like the boot camp discipline and heavy homework nightly.

“Moskowitz’s heavily hyped Success Academy Hudson Yards Middle School, which so far enrolls about 200 kids in grades five and six, is meant to be a model for her to share her education gospel with schools from around the world through a new Education Institute that was launched at the school in June.

“But already Moskowitz has encountered some difficulties.

“An anonymous group of parents at the school has sent scathing letters to Moskowitz and Hudson Yards Principal Malik Russell that decry what they call draconian disciplinary tactics.

“The parents charge Russell gives detention for minor infractions such as failing to clasp their hands, failing to make eye contact and inadvertently breaking wind in class.

“It’s like a military-style boot camp,” said one of the parents, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation.

“The kids have two hours of homework a night,” the parent added. “They don’t have time for playdates, they have no time for a life.”

As Trump would say, “they knew what they signed up for.” Draconian discipline.

As Betsy DeVos would say, “Get out and make another choice.”