Archives for category: New York City

A letter from a NYC teacher:

I am a Nationally Board Certified Teacher (2003, 2013) teaching in NYC. Two years ago, I was intimidated to leave my first NYC school due to test scores on the grade 8 ELA exam. My students passed but didn’t make enough progress. This school was an “A” school in a very depressed neighborhood. Unfortunately, I did not love data enough and I refused to view multiple-choice questions as text.

I chose to assess my students differently: Where are they now? Where are they going? What do they need to know to get there? How can I help them reach their goal? I asked myself these questions daily. I chose community texts, intensive writing workshops, and art to help my students reach their goals. More than anything, I wanted them to experience a type of learning that had nothing to do with worksheets or tests. I wanted to provoke and inspire.

At the end of of my third year, I was slammed with my first formal observation the day after Spring Break. I was informed in an email about 12 hours before the start of the next school day. As my pre-observation was three months earlier, I made sure to send a lengthy and detailed email to my AP prior to the lesson. This was a gamble in itself since my administration was so terrified of email that they usually reprimanded us for using it. They preferred handwritten memos. The AP sat in the back of the room and did not make eye-contact with me. She simply typed.

Immediately following the observation, I was called down for a meeting. The AP who did the formal was not in attendance. The principal told me I did not make tenure. I asked why and how I was evaluated. He said nothing of my formal observation, my three years of teaching, or the countless handwritten memos that stated I was doing a great job (I saved all of them). Instead, he showed me data. Data from the three-day tests he made us give four times a year. These tests were photocopies of old NYS tests. Only the multiple-choice sections were used. Data from the Accelerated Reader (AR) program we struggled to implement. How does a student take an online test without an Internet connection? How do they read without even three titles they could enjoy on their reading level? They don’t. And so my principal also used a lack of data against me. And of course there is VAM. I am “Lucky Number 7.” Once published, that score would hurt his school.

I won’t lie. I cried. I cried because I had spent ten years teaching in functioning public schools in Orange County, FL and Montgomery County, MD. I cried because I was so exhausted fighting for my right to teach and the students’ right to learn. In previous schools, I was treated like a professional. I had working relationships with my administrators. All of us were about changing the lives of our students and we did it together. For ten years, I was inspired, motivated, and supported.

For days after that meeting, my principal would stand outside my room and watch me teach. He would come inside and examine my unit plans, which needed to be aligned to the CCS. He would glare at me if my eighth-graders spoke in the hallways or while walking down five flights of stairs to lunch. During that time, I actually received a memo that said, “Monitor your students at all times. I saw Clara push Timmy during line-up.”

I quickly secured a new position.

On my last day there, we had to wait in line to hand in our classroom keys. I passed my keys to the school secretary and the AP passed me my formal observation paperwork. It was signed, but not one box was checked. I had never known such insidiousness could exist in a place for children.

My current school is a large, “failing” NYC high school. The two APs I work with care about their teachers and students. Through them, I have learned so much about teaching city kids–without lowering my standards or testing them into oblivion. Together, we are building something better for our students. That feeling of support, of community, of compassion is priceless.

This article in the New York Times describes how one large high school now houses nine small schools. Some succeed, some fail, some statistics are better, some are worse or no different. Some statistics are undoubtedly inflated by credit recovery and other tricks to game the system. One thing is clear: a building that once had one principal now has nine.

It is not clear that the nine schools are doing a better job than the one old school in meeting the needs of the students. This jumble should attract the attention of a scholar looking for a big project.

The new mayor will have some heavy lifting to do just to restore the citizens’ belief that they are getting accurate data from the Department of Education, not spin and embroidery.

Help stop co-location of rich charter school in free public space. Join others to demand improvement, not privatization.

CONCERNED PARENTS

CONCERNED STUDENTS

CONCERNED TEACHERS

CONCERNED ABOUT THE CO-LOCATION OF A NEW

SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL

AT THE WASHINGTON IRVING HS CAMPUS?

WANT TO HEAR ABOUT A POSSIBLE LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE PLAN?

MEET WITH ATTORNEYS FROM

ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE

THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYERS WHO SUED TO KEEP SUCCESS ACADEMY

OUT OF BROWNSVILLE ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL

AND WON!

THURSDAY APRIL 4

5PM – 6PM

SEAFARERS HOUSE

123 EAST 15th STREET

WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT FOR QUALITY EDUCATION AT OUR SCHOOLS!

For more information call 212-285-1400 and ask for Laura Barbieri or send an email to LBarbieri@advocatesny.com

.

__,_._,___

Marc Epstein is an experienced history teacher in NYC who holds a Ph.D. In Japanese history. When the Department of Education closed his historic high school (Jamaica High School), Marc joined the ranks of teachers who are assigned to different schools weekly. He has written many articles for Huffington Post and New York City dailies.

He writes:

The Myth Of The Empowered Principal

The “empowered” principal was supposed to be the agent of radical change for the New York public school system. With every passing day it appears that the empowerment model has resulted in the death of institutional memory, atomization, and the end of accountability for anyone above the level of principal.

You need look no further than the scheduling and staffing fiasco that enveloped the new multi-million dollar high school located in one of New York’s most stable middle-class neighborhoods. The school is only three years old and is already being administered by its second principal.

The trouble first began when the administration proved incapable of programming students into their required courses when it opened.

New York 1 (the local TV news station) reported that students complained that they had no science teacher, and were taught by rotating substitutes; “…they were handed new schedules, with different teachers and courses, almost once a week.”
http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/151185/doe-officials-try-to-address-queens-high-school-s-massive-scheduling-headaches

The deputy chancellor for instruction claimed that the problem was rare, but at the same time was kept busy fending off parent protests over the same problems at Long Island City High School just a few miles away. For those of you who are unfamiliar with New York, the schools are located in Queens, the borough considered to have the most functional schools in the massive school system in years past. But all that has changed.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/english-class-frederick-douglass-academy-queens-a-regular-teacher-months-article-1.980188

There’s more to the Metropolitan High School story. Fixing a programming glitch is easy enough. All you need do is bring an experienced programmer on board.

The news stories about the scheduling snafu made no mention of the former principal’s pedagogical decision to enroll the freshman class in Physics, before taking Living Environment (biology), or Chemistry. Physics is considered the most difficult of the Regents science courses and is usually reserved for the most capable students in their junior or senior year.

What’s more, we have no idea if this foolhardy decision was reviewed and approved before its implementation. I’m told that she actually presented this radical reorganization of curriculum as a selling point when she applied to the job!

If you want to make sense of this administrative breakdown you need look no further than the resume of Metropolitan High School’s former principal.
Her entire teaching experience consisted of seven years of teaching, with only three of them in a public school setting. Prior to that she worked variously as a marine biologist, and educational consultant observing teachers in various settings for her father who was a retired principal.
http://www.timesnewsweekly.com/news/2010-03-18/Local_News/NEW_HS_LEADER______VISITS_FH_CIVIC.html

After that, it was on to the vaunted Jack Welch Leadership Academy established by Joel Klein, where graduates are molded to incorporate the ways of the business world into the management of schools. Think of it as a Wharton School for principals with a dollop of West Point discipline thrown in to keep teachers productive and in line.

This business model stresses teacher accountability based on a bottom line calculated by student test results. The institute purposely recruits candidates with minimal classroom experience, believing that experience outside of public education is preferential. So in this regard the Metropolitan High School principal fit the 21st century principal profile Mike Bloomberg wants running his schools.

But the evidence indicates that the principal wasn’t versed in the nuts and bolts aspect of the job that it takes to put a school together and run it. After watching events at the school unfold, I’m reminded of Donald Sutherland’s line to Robert Ryan after inspecting a line of soldiers arrayed in their spit and polish dress uniforms in the Dirty Dozen; “very pretty, colonel, but can they fight?”

That’s because the pre-Bloomberg route to the principalship of a new high school would involve years of seasoning in the classroom before a series of administrative jobs in the program office, the dean’s office, and as an assistant principal, before being given command of a school.

A school like the new Metropolitan High School would be handed to someone with twenty to twenty-five years experience in the system who had a proven record of successful supervision.

That principal would bring an experienced staff on board in order to ensure a successful shakedown cruise and hand off a functioning institution to the next principal some years down the line. Instead what we are witnessing is a new managerial class running schools aground on a regular basis.

Perhaps the most dramatic proof that principal “empowerment” is little more than managerial “newspeak,” is evident in the staffing crisis throughout the school system. That’s because the new business model actually constrains the principal’s ability to hire the best possible staff.

The so-called Bloomberg-Klein business model demands that teacher salaries come directly out of the school-operating budget. Under the old system a school was charged the same amount for a teacher line regardless of the teacher’s salary or seniority. This was a rational approach to staffing in a system of eighty thousand teachers and constant turnover.

But budget cuts to a system that has more than doubled its operating costs to over $22 billion dollars over the past ten years, have forced principals throughout the city to skimp on hiring qualified teachers while administrative costs have ballooned. The result has been the hiring of the cheapest day-to-day substitutes, many of whom aren’t certified to teach the courses they are covering, in lieu of using experienced teachers who are held in a reserve pool because their schools are either being closed or their student populations have dropped.

None of this makes any business or pedagogical sense to anyone but a willful mayor who seems only capable of demolishing what was once a functional system. Education has taken a back seat as the new school leaders ply the only trade they know by following Abraham Maslow’s maxim; “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”

Marc Epstein is an experienced history teacher in New York City whose school–Jamaica High School–was closed as part of the Bloomberg reform plans. Marc holds a Ph.D. In Japanese history, but he is now part of the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) pool, a large number of teachers whoever schools were closed. The teachers now roam the system, assigned for a week at one school, then another, their skills, knowledge, and experience completely discarded.

In this article, Marc asks the unavoidable question, what happens when the reformers have won? What changes after they have abolished unions, tenure, and the public control of public education? There are many ways to write this scenario. This is Marc’s.

Mayor Bloomberg plans to start four charter high schools that will open after his term of office ends.

This constitutes an admission that his own efforts to reform the public schools have failed.

The mayor has had 11 years of total control of the public school system. Every year, he closes more schools. Some of the schools he closes are schools that his own administration opened..

Less than 5% of the city’s 1.1 million students attend charters.

The other 95% have been forgotten, adrift in a system that has been reorganized four times, with all regional and district supervision eliminated, with the loss of large numbers of excellent principals and the hiring of large numbers of ill-prepared principals, left on their own and judged by test scores.

What have the 95% gotten? Tests, pre-tests, test prep. School closings. Overcrowded classes.

The major legacy of the Bloomberg administration is the creation of a test-based accountability system that few believe in, but that has the power to close schools and wreck careers and reputations.

“Tweed,” as the central bureaucracy is called, operates with slavish devotion to “data,” but cold indifference to human beings. The young MBAs at Tweed have spent a decade wiping out institutional memory and attempting to create a bureaucratic, efficient, computer-driven system that churns out higher test scores.

The latest public opinion poll (January) showed that only 18% of the city’s voters want the next mayor to have the control that Bloomberg wielded.

The Bloomberg example reveals the shortcomings of corporate reform. It sets parent against parent in battles for choice and space. It destroys neighborhood schools. It gives preference to schools under private management. It shatters communities so they will be unable to organize and fight back. It lacks any vision of what education is or should be. It has neither reformed the public schools nor provided better education for all students.

Before the passage of No Child Left Behind, public schools were seldom closed for low test scores. School officials and the public understood that low test scores reflected the social and economic conditions in which students live. It made no sense to punish the school because its students were living in poverty. After NCLB and Race to the Top, more and more urban schools are being closed to punish them for their low test scores.

A reader suggested that we read the following research brief:

“Here is a recent Issue Brief from Research for Action that looks into school closings in Washington DC, Pittsburgh, New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Quick but great read:

http://bit.ly/13CAUuN”

Marc Epstein used to work in a large comprehensive high school that was broken up into small schools. Since then, he has worked in many small schools. Based on his knowledge, experience, and research, he came to question and doubt Gates’ belief that NYC’s small schools were successful.

Read here to know why he reached this conclusion.

Small schools are not a new idea in NYC:

“Long before the small school initiative, New York had its own disastrous experiment with dividing up a low achieving comprehensive high school into four small schools.

“Andrew Jackson High School was renamed Campus Magnet almost 20 years ago but the name change did nothing to raise student achievement and stem school violence. It should have provided a cautionary tale for small school promoters. But the lessons of Campus Magnet were ignored. Two of the four schools are to be closed to make way for new schools that will replace failure with success according to authorities.

“When large schools are divided you also lose control of the student population. Students from co-located schools often disrupt classes in neighboring schools or enter a neighboring school to fight. Texting and cell phones provide instant communication to the Clockwork Orange sociopaths, only exacerbating the level of violence.”

The New York Times published a page one story about the closing of the Jonathan M. Levin High School in the Bronx. The school was opened ten years ago to commemorate the life and tragic death of a young teacher who happened to be the son of the CEO of AOL Time Warner. He was murdered by some of his students, who came to his apartment (he let them know that they were always welcome), murdered him, stole his credit cards, and his ATM card.

After a promising start, the school went into decline. As in most other closing schools, most of its students are black, Hispanic, poor, English language learners, and/or in need of special education. Where will these students go? If a school closes because it serves so many needy students, who will take them?

I received an interesting analysis from an educator in NYC.

He writes:

A story published on Thursday in the New York Times profiled the Jonathan M. Levin High School, a school in the Bronx that is about to be shuttered after being deemed failing. As is becoming more and more common in New York City, replacement schools are themselves being replaced. This school was established only ten years ago to replace a large comprehensive high school that was deemed failing. New York City education bureaucrats defended the decision by claiming that other new schools in the very same building supposedly have comparable student populations while “getting dramatically different outcomes.” They somehow forgot to mention that the school in the very same building with the most similar student population, The Academy for History and Citizenship for Young Men, is also being shuttered. That school has the lowest incoming students test scores (in other words the test scores of the students before they even entered high school were well-below grade level) of all the six schools in the building. Want to hazard a guess as to which school has the second lowest? Would it surprise you that the answer is “Jonathan M. Levin High School?” New York City also publishes a “peer index” for each high school, which is supposed to account for student demographic factors. Which schools do you think have the lowest and next to lowest “peer indexes” in the building? Would it surprise you to find out that it is the same two schools in the same order?

The New York Times kindly included some graphs that were supposed to show that the closing Jonathan Levin High School was failing while another high school in the building, Bronx Collegiate Academy, was succeeding with very similar students. But they somehow forgot to include a table showing student attrition at the “dramatically different outcomes” school. I will give those numbers (the underlying data can be found here): 134 students entered as freshmen in 2006, but there were only 84 seniors in 2010. Over 37% of the students were lost. 122 freshmen entered in 2007, but in 2011 only 85 seniors were left. Over 30% missing. 117 freshman entered in 2008, but in 2011 there were only 86 juniors.   Over 26% of the students disappeared in only 3 years. Another way to look at this is to realize that in 2009-10 the school should have had 496 students if they had actually held on to them, but instead had only 391. 105 students gone missing. You would be right to wonder who these students are and what happened to them, Want to bet that these were students who weren’t doing well? And that they were encouraged to go elsewhere. So instead of serving as evidence of a school doing better, the New York Times should have realized this is evidence of the con-games and deceptions schools feel forced to pull in this high-stakes accountability era to make their numbers look good. But there is no underlying educational improvement, just lots of data-driven gaming of the system. In fact, students from the failing school attend college at a 7% higher rate than do students from the “dramatically different outcomes” school.

Let’s look at the bigger picture. In 2003 Taft High School, a large comprehensive school in the Bronx was closed. 10 years later, out of the 6 schools that replaced the failing school: 1 is phasing out, 1 should have been closed already based on the official criteria after having received a “D” on 2 school progress reports in a row (officially a single D or F opens a school to closure), 1“is seen as being on its last legs” according to the New York Times story after having received 3 C’s in a row on its progress reports (3 C’s in a row being the other official criterion for closing a school), 1 school is a screened school and therefore only admits students that have performed at or above grade level in middle school, 1 school, as we have just seen, somehow manages to disappear huge chunks of their students, and the Jonathan M. Levin school is about to be shut down. Nonetheless, Mayor Bloomberg still plans on continuing this charade and his appointees in the New York City Department of Education pretend that closing and opening schools really improves education for students.

Let’s look at one more set of numbers to see how widespread such charades and games are in New York City. The high schools that New York City is in the middle of closing have, on average, about 25% special education students, 13% special education students with the most challenging disabilities, 2.40 Math/English incoming test scores (a “3” represents grade level), and a 1.46 “peer index” (to give some context, Stuyvesant High School has the highest “peer index” in the city of 4.01). Non-selective high schools in New York City as a whole have, on average, roughly 19% special education students, 8.1% special education students with the most challenging disabilities, 2.65 Math/English incoming test scores, and a 2.00 peer index. It is clear that, as has been pointed out again and again, failing schools are not really failing. They are, however, taking on challenges that other schools, supposedly more successful ones, are not. And what about the new schools that are replacing the failing schools? Are they as a whole working with the same challenges? The data suggests that the new schools have managed to employ and numbers dodge and are educating a relatively privileged group of students. They educate, on average, approximately 17.5% special education students, 6.7% special education students with the most challenging disabilities, 2.75 Math/English incoming test scores, and a 2.15 “peer index.” So the new schools as a whole have managed to avoid educating the students with the heaviest needs that the failing schools educate (approaching 10% fewer high needs students in every conceivable category). On top of that they have managed to select students who come in with less challenges than all other non-selective city schools as a whole. Yet the education reformers want us to believe that a charade like this represents genuine progress!

That the education reformers are willing to gloss over the truth is somewhat understandable. They are driven by ideology and not facts. By dogma and not by empirical evidence of what works best for kids. But citizens have the right to expect that the Federal Government would serve as an objective check and look behind the smokescreen. Unfortunately, in the current political climate that is not happening.  The U.S. Department of Education is encouraging these sorts of tricks. Hopefully, in the near future, before much more harm is done to students, we will be able to focus on truly improving education for all children through genuine reform and not mere chicanery.

An insider in the New York City Department of Education was disturbed to read the New York Times’ editorial praising the CREDO study of charters in New York City. She knew that the data on the public website of the Department of Education does not support the CREDO analysis.

Here is her own analysis, based on DOE’s own data:

A New York Times editorial Saturday praised a new study claiming that through the 2010-11 school year New York City charter schools have produced better results for students than other public schools. Of course this study did not mention the investigative reporting by Reuters proving that charter schools have truckloads of schemes to turn away and kick out students who might bring down their numbers. See that story here.

Nonetheless we took the report on good faith and attempted to verify its claims using the New York City Department of Education’s own data sets that can be found here: http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/tools/report/default.htm In these data sets charter school outcomes are compared to those of similar schools. Similar schools are schools that educate comparable students based on incoming test scores and other criteria. We decided to spend some time examining these data sets for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years. There are the years in which the NY Times claimed charter schools had “whopping” results. But is it true? Sadly the NY Times has been fooled.

Let’s start with elementary and middle charter schools during the 2009-10 school year. In that year the average student results on the English exam for charter schools in New York City placed them at the 32.5th percentile of similar schools. Looking at students who scored as “proficient” on the English exam charter schools were at the 31.4th percentile of similar schools. And when looking at how charter schools helped their students improve as compared to prior years (in other words: student growth) they performed dismally, ranking at the 20.1st percentile.

But how about math? Maybe charters don’t do such a good job with English but do a better job in math. Well they do, but still performed worse than about 60% of public schools with similar student populations: ranking at the 42.3rd percentile for average student test scores, the 37.9th percentile for students scoring “proficient” on math, and coming in at the 44.8th percentile for student improvement in math.

In 2010-11, the school year in which the study cited by the New York Times claimed the best performance by charter schools, the truth is that charter schools continued to do a much, much poorer job for students than other schools with similar students. In English they ranked at the 35.1st percentile for average student test scores, at the 36.7th percentile for students scoring “proficient” and at the lowly 28.6th percentile for student growth. Math was slightly better: 51.5th percentile for average student scores, 55.4th for student “proficiency,” and 52.2nd for student growth. And this is with the charter school practice of kicking out students right before testing time as shown in this expose http://www.edwize.org/middle-school-charters-show-alarming-student-attrition

So where does this leave us? Charter schools, in fact, did much, much worse than similar schools in NYC in English and about average in math. If you average the numbers for 2010-11 together, charter schools are doing 16.5% worse than the average similar school in English. And, using the same calculation, they do 3% better than the average similar school in Math. It would appear that much, much poorer performance in English and barely better performance in Math does not support the claim that charter schools in New York City give superior results, whatever the New York Times might say. It should also be pointed out that these comparisons are based on ACTUAL students unlike the study cited so approvingly by the New York Times, which invented virtual students to do their “comparisons.”

How about high schools? Maybe charter high schools in New York City are doing a “whopping” job there. Again, unfortunately for students, they do not. Using the data set available on the New York City Department of Education webpage here: http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C8903442-BA48-4248-B4CE-156FAA2D8929/0/2010_2011_HS_PR_Results_2012_03_16.xlsx we find that in 2010-11, for the first time, schools were rated based on how well they were preparing students for college. And how did charter high schools do on those ratings? Only 14.9 percent of the charter high school students met the college ready standard as compared to a 32.3 percent average in similar high schools. Only 31.4 percent of charter high school students took and passed a college preparatory course as compared to a 42.8 percent average in similar high schools. And only 52.8 percent of students enrolled in college as compared to a 61.2 percent average in similar schools.

What does this all mean for education? We must start to evaluate the success and failures of initiatives such as charter schools truthfully without letting politics get in the way. We owe this to students. Unfortunately, the response from charter schools, their protectors and funders will probably be a redoubled effort to screen and selectively prune students at charter schools to make their numbers look better. They will continue, with the support of the editorial page of the New York Times, to bash public schools. Instead of committing to improving education for all students and giving all schools the resources to do what we know helps all kids (strong curriculum, small classes, a pleasant school environment, high quality after-school programs, embedded systems of social-emotional and health supports) they will continue to play politics with public education and the futures of our children.