Archives for category: New York City

Steve Nelson writes here about the erroneous assumptions behind the New York Times’ article on the “broken promise of school choice,” posted earlier today.

I was especially happy to see this article, because I sensed something awry about the Times’ article, and Nelson nails it.

By the Times’ definition, the schools that select the most accomplished students are the “best” schools, and the non-selective high schools are “bad” or “not good” schools.

These are false assumptions, he says. And he is right. If a school cherrypicks the best students with the highest scores, then the school will have a high rating based on its students’ test scores and academic accomplishments. Both public and charter schools have recognized this truism, but the media should have the sense not to buy it.

This is the same fallacy that lies behind the U.S. News & World Report rating of high schools: the best schools are those that weed out the weak students or cull the best ones. The best high school might be the one that takes all students and helps all of them reach their full potential.

Nelson writes:

The first assumption is that there are easily identified “good” schools and “bad” schools – or, more diplomatically, “less good schools.” Readers are asked to stipulate, for example, that Stuyvesant High School is a “good” school – a really “good” school – and that Herbert H. Lehman High School in the Bronx is a “bad” or “less good school.” The “good” schools are more selective, whether by entrance exam or grade point average and the “less good” school are less selective, often to the point of being a last resort for students who fail to gain entry into a “good” school.

The assumption is categorically false. Stuyvesant is assessed as “good” on the basis of the relatively conspicuous achievements of its students, particularly as measured by graduation rate and college placement. The further assumption is that Stuyvesant’s faculty and program were the critical variables in achieving those ends. Accepting those assumptions then leads to the final, implicit assumption resting under all this statistical clutter; that exposing more students to Stuyvesant’s faculty and program would bring similar results, thus helping solve the education reform problem.

Stuyvesant may or may not be a “good” school by other, more meaningful measures, but it is certainly not a “good” school because its carefully culled flock performs precisely as the culling process would predict. Many kids who get into Stuyvesant might do quite well if they didn’t go to the school at all.

At the other end of this delusional continuum, Herbert H. Lehman is considered a significantly “less good” school because its graduation rate is about half of Stuyvesant’s rate and its graduates seldom matriculate at highly selective colleges. Herbert H. Lehman may or may not be a “less good” school by other, more meaningful measures, but it is certainly not a “less good” school because its very different culled flock performs precisely as the culling process would predict. I propose that you might take all of Stuyvesant’s faculty members and switch them with Lehman’s faculty members, and the results would not be substantially different.

This meaningless game plays out in the private school world and in higher education too. Highly selective schools attract students who are most likely to succeed, based on factors from privilege to preparation, and the schools are then considered fabulous by virtue of the glittering credentials of the students they selected. Not a dollop of meaning in that self-fulfilling prophecy of pretense.

It doesn’t mean that Choate and Exeter or Harvard and Stanford are lousy. It merely means that they are not “good” just because they admit only the most successful students. As many honest observers note, even within the lofty confines of the most selective colleges, undergraduate classes at Yale are not necessary better than, or even as good as, undergraduate courses at SUNY Binghamton…

When viewed through this clearer lens, the article, and the process, is a farce of Shakespearian proportions. Young children are sifted through a bureaucratic sorter, spilling out in relatively unchanging proportions to the “good” schools and “less good” schools depending on their predictors of success. This process, however earnestly designed or studiously analyzed, simply perpetuates the glowing or dim reputations of the schools where the children are dropped.

This in essence is the mirage of school choice in all its fraudulent glory. By rigging the system, by cruel attrition, by statistical sleight of hand, the choice movement is simply sifting kids through a similar sorter, leaving the false impression that the plutocrat-funded, heavily-hyped charter schools are “good,” and the increasingly deprived district schools are “less good.”

Instead of sifting and sorting America’s least advantaged children through these arcane systems, we should be investing in early childhood experiences, ameliorating poverty, facing racism honestly, and providing generous support to the least privileged among us.

The New York Times published a lengthy article about New York City’s complicated and byzantine high school admissions process, which was launched 14 years ago to give choice to every student. With few (if any) exceptions, neighborhood high schools were a thing of the past. Students went to school fairs and scanned a lengthy catalogue to review the offerings of hundreds of high schools across the city. Zip code mattered not at all. Some schools had specific entry requirements, such as a difficult entrance examination or a talent audition. Most were open admissions. Now, a generation later, the results are in:

Under a system created during Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration, eighth graders can apply anywhere in the city, in theory unshackling themselves from failing, segregated neighborhood schools. Students select up to 12 schools and get matched to one by a special algorithm. This process was part of a package of Bloomberg-era reforms intended to improve education in the city and diminish entrenched inequities.

There is no doubt that the changes yielded meaningful improvements. The high school graduation rate is up more than 20 points since 2005, as the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio has built on Mr. Bloomberg’s gains. The graduation gap between white and black or Hispanic students, while still significant and troubling, has narrowed.

But school choice has not delivered on a central promise: to give every student a real chance to attend a good school.

Fourteen years into the system, black and Hispanic students are just as isolated in segregated high schools as they are in elementary schools — a situation that school choice was supposed to ease.

The average black or Hispanic student attends an elementary school where 80% of his or her classmates are black or Hispanic.

The average black or Hispanic students attends a high school where 79% of his or her classmates are black or Hispanic.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

Within the system, there is a hierarchy of schools, each with different admissions requirements — a one-day high-stakes test, auditions, open houses. And getting into the best schools, where almost all students graduate and are ready to attend college, often requires top scores on the state’s annual math and English tests and a high grade point average.

Those admitted to these most successful schools remain disproportionately middle class and white or Asian, according to an in-depth analysis of acceptance data and graduation rates conducted for The New York Times by Measure of America, an arm of the Social Science Research Council. At the same time, low-income black or Hispanic children like the ones at Pelham Gardens are routinely shunted into schools with graduation rates 20 or more percentage points lower.

While top middle schools in a handful of districts groom children for competitive high schools that send graduates to the Ivy League, most middle schools, especially in the Bronx, funnel children to high schools that do not prepare them for college.

The roots of these divisions are tangled and complex. Students in competitive middle schools and gifted programs carry advantages into the application season, with better academic preparation and stronger test scores. Living in certain areas still comes with access to sought-after schools. And children across the city compete directly against one another regardless of their circumstances, without controls for factors like socioeconomic status.

Ultimately, there just are not enough good schools to go around. And so it is a system in which some children win and others lose because of factors beyond their control — like where they live and how much money their families have.

The New York City public schools are highly segregated. The demographics are challenging. According to a report from The Century Foundation, the city school system is predominantly black and Hispanic (and has been since 1966, when whites became a minority): As of 2015, citywide student demographics2 were 27.1 percent black, 15.5 percent Asian, 40.5 percent Hispanic, 14.8 percent white, and 2.1 percent identified as “other.” Nearly 77 percent of students were classified as living in poverty, while 12.5 percent were identified as English language learners, and 18.7 percent as students with disabilities. With a total enrollment of 1.1 million students, of whom only 14.8% are white, it is hard to see racial balance, except in isolated instances, because the opportunities are limited.

The choice system is difficult to maneuver, even with the help of a guidance counselor. Eighty thousand students apply to 439 schools, broken up into over 775 programs. When Michael Bloomberg took office as mayor, the city had 110 high schools, most of them enrolling thousands of students. Most students went to their zoned high schools. Bloomberg eliminated zoned high schools and embraced small high schools, with the support of the Gates Foundation.

Rare is a 13-year-old equipped to handle the selection process alone.

The process can become like a second job for some parents as they arm themselves with folders, spreadsheets and consultants who earn hundreds of dollars an hour to guide them. But most families in the public school system have neither the flexibility nor the resources to match that arsenal….

The citywide graduation rate for all kinds of high schools is 72.6 percent, according to the Education Department. But that average masks sharp variations between schools based on their admissions methods. When Measure of America analyzed the rate for each method, it found that selectivity and graduation rates declined essentially in lock step, and that as graduation rates fell, the students were more likely to be poor and black or Hispanic…

Kristen Lewis, one of the directors of Measure of America, said the data revealed, in essence, two separate public school systems operating in the city. There are some great options for the families best equipped to navigate the application process. But there are not enough good choices for everyone, so every year thousands of children, including some very good students, end up in mediocre high schools, or worse…

An analysis by the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School found that half of all students who got top scores on state tests came from just 45 middle schools out of more than 500. And 60 percent of students who went to specialized high schools came from those same 45 schools. None of those middle schools are in the Bronx.

The Times’ article focused on a middle school in the Bronx called Pelham Gardens. About 95 percent of the middle school’s students are black or Hispanic, many of them the children of Jamaican immigrants or immigrants themselves. Most of them come from poor families…

Last year, 146 seventh graders at Pelham Gardens took the state tests. On the English exam, 29 passed, which requires a score of at least 3 out of 4. Fifteen did that well in math. Only seven scored at least a 3 on both tests.

This means that a majority of the children had no real chance of getting into the most selective schools, like Manhattan/Hunter Science High School or Townsend Harris High School in Queens, where students must have a 3 or higher on the tests. The high school directory lists 29 programs in the city that did not accept anyone with a score lower than 3 on the math exam.

In a system with 1.1 million students, change is difficult. School segregation tends, inevitably, to mirror housing segregation. Housing segregation tends to reflect family income ad deliberate government policy decisions made decades ago when locating large housing projects. The choice plan assumed that students would be freed form the constraints of their zip code and that choice would promote desegregation. As the article shows, it has not.

Shades of McCarthyism. The principal of a small high school in Brooklyn is under investigation after someone tipped off the Department of Education’s Office of Special Investigations that she might be a Communist.

“It was early March when a representative from the New York City Department of Education’s Office of Special Investigations sat down with Jill Bloomberg, the longtime principal of Park Slope Collegiate in Brooklyn, a combined middle and high school, to inform her that she was under investigation.

“The representative told Ms. Bloomberg that she could not tell her the nature of any allegations, nor who had made them, but said that she would need to interview Ms. Bloomberg’s staff.

“Then one of her assistant principals, who had met with an investigator, revealed to her exactly what the allegation was, one that seemed a throwback to another era: Communist organizing.

“I think I just said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. This is something O.S.I. investigates?’” Ms. Bloomberg said, using an abbreviation for the Office of Special Investigations. “I mean, what decade are we living in?”
But after the initial shock, she said she realized she had been waiting for something like this to happen for a long time.

“Over the years, Ms. Bloomberg has become one of the most outspoken and visible critics of New York City’s public schools, regularly castigating the Education Department’s leadership at forums and in the news media. Most of her criticism is aimed at actions that she says perpetuate a segregated and unequal educational system and that penalize black and Latino students. Through the years, she has helped organize protests and assemblies to push for integration and equal resources and treatment for her almost entirely black and Latino student body.

“Last Friday, Ms. Bloomberg filed a lawsuit against the school system saying it violated her rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects an individual’s civil rights and the right to free speech under the First Amendment. Ms. Bloomberg was seeking an injunction to stop the investigation until her lawsuit is resolved.”

Do employees of the New York City Department of Education have freedom of speech?

More on this subject: See here.

Parents and many of the staff at Central Park East 1 Elementary School in New York City have been protesting the current principal. CPE was founded by Deborah Meier as an experimental progressive school. It has had many wonderful principals over the years, and it draws a cross-section of students from out of district. About 2/3 of the parents are opposed to the principal because they believe she does not share the vision of CPE and is trying to destroy it. The failure of the New York City Department of Education to find a solution to this imbroglio is inexplicable and puzzling.

Jane Andrias and Deborah Meier wrote this comment to explain the background:

Deborah Meier has been having difficulty with her vision and is now dependent on voice activated devices for reading and writing. As a result an earlier response to the blog was incomplete.

In early April, Deborah and I wrote a response to Kate Taylor’s article in the NY Times on the conflict at Central Park East 1 (“CPE1”). The letter was not published. Taylor’s article raised many of the right questions confronting the institution but failed to explore why there has been no constructive solution to address the continuing conflicts within the school community and restore the safe and supportive learning environment for children and adults, which had been the hallmark of the school.

CPE1 was founded in 1974 as part of an East Harlem initiative to show what could be possible in what was at that time one of the poorest and most educationally deprived communities in the city. The then District Superintendent, Anthony Alvarado, invited us to start a small, progressive and democratically governed school. Over the ensuing 30 years the school developed a national and international reputation for success in educating its children while maintaining a democratic culture. Faculty, staff, families and children all felt respected and heard even in times when internal differences or external policy changes challenged the integrity of the school’s core beliefs and highly developed practice. All important decisions were made collectively. One of the most notable features was the relationships that developed among staff, families and children, many of which last to this day. This continued and flourished long after Deborah left the school in 1985 under the leadership of the two principals who succeeded her.

While many of the attributes of the school have been threatened over the last decade, a third principal, who was the choice of the school community, succeeded in supporting the school culture and mission until she left to form her new school based on the principles and practices of CPE1.

The next principal who followed was also recommended by the school community but was not a strong enough leader to sustain and build on the mission of the school and the school began to erode. Three tenured teachers left the school at the end of her last year. Monika Garg was then appointed as the principal without the input or support of the school community. During the past two years with Ms. Garg as principal, the school’s mission has been totally undermined. Three more tenured teachers and one promising new teacher left the school at the end of last year.

A community that was once built on trust, compassion, the power of ideas and democratic process of decision making has become too distracted by controversy to function as a united and safe learning community for children and adults alike. Unless the unstated intent of the recent failure to end the turmoil of these past few years has been to close CPE1 so the space could be used for other purposes, it’s clear that we now face a choice between either replacing the principal or replacing the students, families and the school’s mission. We have made efforts over the past two years to join with the DOE to identify leadership that would build on the foundation of the past and restore the school’s excellent educational and democratic principles and culture. We are disappointed by the resistance of the DOE to take the necessary steps to constructively resolve this unrelenting and destructive conflict at CPE1.

Deborah Meier-1974-85-Founding Teacher/ Director, MacArthur Award Winner
Jane Andrias-1981-2003 Art Teacher and Principal

State Senate Leader John Flanagan wants to lift the charter cap for New York City as part of a budget deal. Flanagan lives on Long Island, where his constituents don’t want charters. Apparently, he thinks charters are for children of color. He should take a look at how charters have hollowed out major cities, stripping resources from the public schools, cherry-picking the best students, and harming the schools that most students attend.

“There are currently 216 charter schools in the city serving 106,600 students, or 10 percent of the public-school population.”

Flanagan’s spokesman said it was time to take “a global look” at the NYC school system. Good idea. If they did, they would realize that adding charters cripples the system as a whole.

Deborah Meier created an oasis of child-centered education at Central Park East 1?in East Harlem. Parents from out-of-district enrolled. It was different from other public schools.

Deborah Meier left, convinced that her school was in safe hands.

But the system took control. The system does not like rebellion.

Parents are now protesting a principal determined to quash Deborah Meier’s vision.

Arthur Goldstein writes about it here:

http://nyceducator.com/2017/04/unsafe-at-any-speed-at-cpe-1.html?m=1

Arthur Goldstein has been teaching for more than 30 years in the New York City public schools.

He has a terrific blog about teaching in New York City.

Here, he describes how he will be rated as a teacher by an insane system.

He begins here:

NY City’s brilliant and infallible Engage system has mandated that I be rated on a test the overwhelming majority of my students will not be taking. As far as I can determine, this is a side effect of the rather awful regulation called CR Part 154. You see, I’m an ESL teacher, but teaching ESL isn’t real teaching. That’s because under Part 154 anything not regarded as “core content” is utterly without value. After all, if it can’t be measured with a standardized test, what proof is there that it even exists?

And yet, in fact, there is a standardized test to measure ESL progress. Sure it’s a stinking piece of garbage, but it exists. This test is called the NYSESLAT. It used to test language acquisition, albeit poorly, but it’s been redesigned to measure just how Common Corey our students are. For the last few years I’ve lost weeks of instruction so I could sit in the auditorium and ask newcomers endless questions about Hammurabi’s Code. I’m not sure what effect this had on non-English speaking students, but I know more about Hammurabi’s code than I ever have.

You may have read me lamenting the fact that I’d be measured on such a poor test once or twice. Last year, in fact, I must have done OK with it since I got an effective rating. I have no idea how exactly I did this. I don’t teach to that test nor do I go out of my way to learn what’s on it. With the oral part is so outlandish and invalid it doesn’t seem worth my while to study the written part. So why the hell aren’t I rated on this test?

It’s complicated, and I can only guess. But Part 154 largely couples ESL with another subject area. In my school, that area is English. It’s kind of a natural pairing, until you realize the high likelihood of ELL newcomers sitting around trying to read To Kill a Mockingbird when they can’t yet tell you what their names are. After all, when English teachers take the magical 12 credits that render them dual-licensed, how can we be sure part of that training entails instruction to NOT give ELLs materials they CANNOT READ? Maybe the focus is on making stuff more Common Corey. Who knows?

Anna Allanbrook is principal of the Brooklyn New School in Brooklyn, New York. She explains here how her elementary school became “the Opt Out School.” Very few children in New York City opt out. Some are afraid they won’t get into a good middle school or a good high schools if they don’t have scores. Some are afraid the Immigration Police will come for them. Some are intimidated by administrators who want to play it safe. Read what happened at BNS.


Dear Families:

Tomorrow on April 4, 2017, fifty years after Martin Luther King Jr delivered his famous speech, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, at Riverside Church and forty nine years after he was shot and killed, we will join with communities across the country, by reciting a few excerpts from those words. This reading is an initiative organized by the The National Council of Elders. Just as Martin Luther King saw a need to condemn silence in 1967, so too does the National Council of Elders see that need today. They have asked schools, churches, civil rights groups, labor organizations, museums, community organizations, and others to join in the building of a movement to break silence, promote dialogue and engage in nonviolent direct action.

In that speech, Martin Luther King said, “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

As the daughter of someone born in Vienna, Austria in 1924, I can’t help but remember his story when grappling with recent times. When we think of that big fifth grade curriculum question: What Are You Willing to Stand Up For?, I am reminded of Martin Niemöller’s famous quote:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Educators in the public schools are told not to talk about anything political. This puts us in somewhat of a bind as in the last twenty years, politicians have made school performance a political issue. But there is hope and that hope is reflected in the story of the Opt Out Movement.

At BNS the idea of not taking a state test started with one child and one mom, a mom who said, “No, my child would not be taking the citywide tests.” Within just a few years, BNS became known as the “Opt Out” school. Lots of folks ask how this happened and the answer is very simple. The staff in our school came together around our thinking about the tests. We did this because of what we saw happen when kids took these new tests. We did this by meeting and sharing ideas, first amongst ourselves and then with others. Simultaneously, parents were mobilizing and talking to parents in and outside of the school community. Teachers and parents held meetings to talk about assessment in general, and to talk about the Pearson tests, the specific tests that led to such a major revolt. Teachers described what they saw when kids were testing: children banging their heads, children throwing up, children crying.

Opting Out gave Brooklyn New School the freedom to not teach to the test. In fact our third to fifth grade teachers met again and decided as an entire school not to do any test prep. This became BNS policy. That in a nutshell was the result of one family initially saying no to the test.

This year, the opt out movement may not seem that important. Somehow what has happened nationally is more frightening and certainly more destructive than six days of standardized testing.

There is a sense of urgency today in the United States of America.

We must frame our actions in our commitment to our children, knowing that a big part of our work is the development of the citizens of tomorrow, people who are thoughtful, who read, who think, and who have the skill set to distinguish between facts and alternative facts.
The reality is that many of our New York City public schools are already doing that, offering rich curriculum and programming, which invites learning and encourages inquiry and reflection. As a part of our work, just as social media has made protest visible, we need to make public education visible and we need to work with our colleagues to embrace the possible.

All too often, folks come into our school and marvel at our projects, our trips, the art, the music, the science, saying, “I didn’t know this was happening in public schools.” It is happening in public schools and it could happen even more. The potential is unlimited. Schools that have the freedom to determine what it is they are teaching and how they are teaching, are working in remarkable ways.

If we reframe the conversation to be about kids, if we remove the stigma of low test scores and focus not on bad schools and good schools, but rather on giving our children what they need, we have the power to effect change.

We have no idea how the new administration is going to affect us, although we know that the decisions of prior Secretaries of Education have had tremendous impact. And we know that decisions made at the national level can hurt us locally unless we stay focused on our vision.

At BNS, we took away the impact of standardized tests by reminding parents of their rights. In the next days, weeks, months, we need to be attentive and vigilant, never tiring, being active citizens, and always staying true to the children.

It is not the nineteen thirties, but it is worth remembering the years of my dad’s childhood when it was decided that he and other Jewish children would no longer be allowed to go to school with the Gentiles. That was not normal, and resistance did happen. As policies that are not normal are implemented today, we need to stand together as educators to do what is right for our kids.

All for now,

Anna

Quote of the Week:

Anonymous, as told by the ELA testing proctor: “I think two answers are right. Where should I explain (in writing) my thinking?”

Parents can make a huge difference. No one can criticize them as looking out only for “adult interests,” that obnoxious term that Michelle Rhee popularized.

The parent protest continues at CPE 1.

Here is an update by retired teacher activist Norm Scott at his blog EdNotes.

As reported earlier today, scores of parents are conducting a sit-in protest at CentralPark East 1, demanding the ouster of the principal.

Leonie Haimson attended the meeting of the school’s leadership team last night and reports here on what she learned.
https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2017/04/amazing-evening-parents-and-teacher-sit.html?m=1

The complaints against the principal were many. The parents refused to leave when the meeting ended. Although police were present, someone made a decision not to arrest the parents.

Debbie Meier, who founded the school in 1974, taped a message of support for the parents.