Governor Cuomo & Regents Chancellor Tisch favor expanding cap & will likely push for this in Legislature this year. We will be drafting a resolution, urging the Legislature to oppose any lifting of the charter cap, and asking the state to cover entire cost of charter rent in NYC. Email us at info@classsizematters.org if you’d like a copy.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Our Co-Location Moratorium Letter to the Chancellor
On Nov. 18, along with many parent leaders and other advocates, we sent the letter below to the Chancellor, urging a moratorium on any more co-locations until all NYC children could be ensured of their constitutional right to a sound basic education, including smaller classes. WNYC reported on our letter here.
It was reported yesterday that the DOE has turned down three new charters asking for co-located space, one in District 6 in Upper Manhattan, correctly stating there is no room in their schools, and the other two in Brooklyn, and is negotiating with them on leasing private space.
Under the new state law, NYC has to provide free space for all new and expanding charters going forward, or pay them up to $2600 per student for leased space. After NYC reaches $40M in total rental costs, state will pick up 60%.
Under the existing charter cap, NYC already has 197 charters, 31 more have been approved to open over the next two years, and 28 remain under the cap.
Governor Cuomo & Regents Chancellor Tisch favor expanding cap & will likely push for this in Legislature this year. We will be drafting a resolution, urging the Legislature to oppose any lifting of the charter cap, and asking the state to cover entire cost of charter rent in NYC. Email us at info@classsizematters.org if you’d like a copy.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Our suggestions to the Blue Book working group; please write your own letter by November 26!
Please write your own letter to DOE's Blue Book working group about how to revise the much-criticized school utilization formula. Their email is below and the deadline for submitting comments is next Wednesday, November 26. They plan to present their initial recommendations to the public in December. Feel free to include any of the points below; most importantly please mention the need for the Blue Book to be aligned with smaller class sizes, or else NYC children will continue to suffer yet more overcrowding, more co-locations and larger classes in the years to come.
To: BlueBookWG@gmail.com
November 19, 2014
Dear members of the Blue Book Task force:
Thank you for reaching out for suggestions on how to
improve the school utilization formula. I urge you to reform the formula so
that it takes into account of the following critical factors:
1. The need for smaller classes. The formula should
be aligned to smaller classes in all grades, with the goal of achieving the
targets in the DOE’s Contract for Excellence plan of no more than 20 students
per class in K-3, 23 students per class in grades 4-8, and 25 students per
class in core high school classes. Right now, the target figures in the
utilization formula are much larger in grades 4-12 (28-30) and also larger than
current class size averages in 4-12 grades, which are about 26.7-26.8.
They will thus tend to force class sizes upward. In fact, there is a
clause in the C4E law passed in 2007 that requires that NYC align its capital
plan to smaller classes – which has yet to occur.
2. The formula should include space for preK. This
year, there are more than 53,000 preK seats; with 20,000 more seats to be added
next year. According to news reports, 60% of the preK programs this year
are in district school buildings. Without an allowance in the Blue Book
formula for preK, the city may be subtracting the space needed to reduce class
size, or other critical space needed for a quality education, as noted
below. Our analysis revealed that there are at least 11,839 preK seats
sited in buildings this year that were over 100% utilization last year,
according to the 2013-2014 Blue Book.
3. The formula should include sufficient cluster and
specialty rooms so that all children have the ability to take art, music, and
science in appropriate sized classrooms.
4. Subtract the number of specialty classrooms necessary
for a well-rounded education in middle schools, for the purpose of calculating
utilization rate, as was done in the 2002-3 formula. Now, if a middle
school specialty room or library is converted into a classroom because of
overcrowding, the formula falsely portrays the school has having more space
rather than less.
5. In order to maximize classroom occupancy (the current
efficiency ratio assumes 90% in middle schools) ensure that teachers have an
alternative space to do their prep work and store their papers.
6. Properly capture the need for dedicated rooms to
provide services to struggling students and those with disabilities. The
formula now is inadequate and depends on an abstract figure, rather than the
actual number of struggling students or students with disabilities enrolled in
the school.
7. Though students housed in trailers or TCUs are
now assigned to the main building for the purposes of calculating the
utilization rate, those students housed in temp buildings are not.
Neither are students in annexes or mini-schools, even though they often use
common spaces in the main building, such as libraries, cafeterias and
gyms. According to our analysis, nearly half of schools with TCUs,
annexes, transportables or temp buildings were wrongly reported as
underutilized in earlier Blue Books. The overcrowding caused by assigning
all these additional students to shared spaces must be captured in the
utilization figure.
Reforming the Instructional Footprint
The instructional footprint must also be improved, as the
DOE uses this highly flawed instrument to determine where there may be space
for co-locations. Here are some suggestions on how to do this:
1. Re-install class size targets into the
Footprint. There are no longer ANY class size targets in the Footprint,
which will lead to continued class size increases unless this is
remedied. The original Footprint from 2008 assumed class sizes of 20
students per class in K-3 and 25 in grades 4-5, and none in any other
grade. In 2009, class size targets were raised to 28 in grades 4-5 and in
2011, all class size targets were eliminated except in the case of Alternative
learning centers, transfer HS, full time GED programs and YABC programs. Why
these changes were made, and why the DOE held that these were the only schools
that should be provided with smaller classes was unexplained. Instead the
class size targets should be re-instituted and aligned with those in the Blue
Book, as suggested above (i.e. class sizes of 20 in grades K-3, 23 in grades
4-8 and 25 in high school.)
2. Restore the definition of a full size classroom for
grades 1-12 to at least 600 sq. ft. In 2010, the Footprint reduced this
to 500 square feet – even though in the building code requires 20 sq. feet per
child in these grades; meaning only a maximum of 25 students could be in a minimum
size room without risking their safety. (For comparison, Georgia mandates
at least 660-750 square feet for a minimum size classroom, Texas calls for 700-
800 square feet, and California at least 960 square feet or 30 sq. ft. per
student.)
3. Special education students should be provided with
even more space, according to the NYSED guidelines of 75 sq. feet per
child. Instead, the DOE Footprint specifies only 240-499 square feet for
special education classrooms; if the city adhered to the state guidelines, this
would allow for only three to seven students per class.
4. Increase the number of cluster rooms which now are
very minimal in the Footprint, especially for large high schools, calling for
only two specialty rooms and one science lab, no matter how many students are
enrolled in the school.
5. Ensure that the Footprint allows sufficient space for
dedicated support services, resource rooms, administrative services,
intervention rooms, and SETSS rooms.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you might
have; more information about these issues is also available in our report,
Space Crunch, available here: http://tinyurl.com/m632rg6
Yours,
Leonie Haimson
Executive Director
Class Size Matters
124 Waverly Pl.
New York, NY 10011
212-674-7320
leonie@classsizematters.org
www.classsizematters.org
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Class size averages drop slightly this fall in grades K-3 and 4th-8th, but grow in high school; would take 24-38 years to reach C4E goals
For immediate release: November
18, 2014
For more information contact:
Leonie Haimson, 917-435-9329, leonie@classsizematters.org
Josey Bartlett, (718) 803-6373 x 202, Jbartlett@council.nyc.gov
Class size averages drop slightly this
fall in grades K-3 and 4th-8th, but grow in HS
At least 367,794 students remain in
classes of 30 or more
Late Friday, the DOE released
class size averages by school, district, borough and citywide. The data
is posted here: http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/schools/data/classsize/classsize.htm
The good news is that for the
first time since 2008, average class sizes decreased over the grade spans of
K-3rd and 4th-8th grades.
The bad news is that at this
gradual rate of decline, it would take 24 years in grades K-3 and 38 years in 4th-8th
grades to reach the Contracts for Excellence goals the city promised the state
to achieve over five years.
In addition, 30,444 Kindergarten
students --43% -- are in classes of 25 or more ( 25 is the union
contractual limit in that grade).

In fact, there are more
students in classes of 30 or more this year (a minimum of 367,794 students,
compared to 347,418 last year at this time.)
|
|
“The preliminary class size data
shows that too many New York City students remain in overly large classes,”
said City Council Education Committee Chairperson Daniel Dromm. “Many classes
contain 30 or more students, which makes teaching extremely difficult,
particularly given the higher expectations required under the Common Core.
The Department of Education must make class size reduction a high
priority in order to give city students a quality education. Our kids
deserve better.”
Said Leonie Haimson, Executive
Director of Class Size Matters, “When he ran for mayor, Bill de Blasio promised
to comply with the City’s original class size reduction plan submitted in 2007
and if necessary, raise funds to do so. Smaller classes have also been
the top priority of parents on the DOE’s own parent surveys for 8 years in a
row. It is time that the Mayor followed through on his campaign promises,
and focused on this all-important goal to improve the opportunities of NYC
children. “
For class size averages and trends for each school
district, or the schools with the largest class sizes by district, please email
info@classsizematters.org
###
Monday, November 17, 2014
CM Rosenthal urges the Chancellor and the Panel for Education Policy to be more transparent in awarding contracts
Thanks to Councilmember Helen Rosenthal, who has written the Chancellor and the members of the Panel for Educational Policy, expressing her concern about the lack of transparency when it comes to the awarding of DOE contracts, with the back-up documentation or "RAs" not posted until the night before the Panel vote. CM Rosenthal is the chair of the NYC Council Contracts Committee with a special interest in this issue.
Under Bloomberg, these documents were available at least a week before, so it's very sad that the DOE has gone backwards in this regard -- which contributed to the fiasco of the awarding of a no-bid renewal to Joel Rose for his School of One contract, for an online program he developed while at DOE. The new contract for his School of One contract violated not only the conflict of interest law, but also the terms and the promises in the earlier contract of a perpetual free license for the program to the city's schools. CM Rosenthal also expresses concern in her letter about a proposed contract for Questar -- which is supposed to produce a new Gifted and talented test for the city at a cost of $6 million, without any record I can find of having ever developed such an exam, or any exam for children as young as four years old.
Without knowing anything about the specifics in these contracts, whether they were competitively bid and/or whether the companies getting these contracts have been investigated for irregularities in the past, it makes it impossible for the public to be fully informed and be able to comment on these contracts in advance of the vote. Let's hope the Chancellor and the Contract Department of DOE listens -- as well as the PEP members stand up for enhanced transparency, accountability and the public's right to know.
Under Bloomberg, these documents were available at least a week before, so it's very sad that the DOE has gone backwards in this regard -- which contributed to the fiasco of the awarding of a no-bid renewal to Joel Rose for his School of One contract, for an online program he developed while at DOE. The new contract for his School of One contract violated not only the conflict of interest law, but also the terms and the promises in the earlier contract of a perpetual free license for the program to the city's schools. CM Rosenthal also expresses concern in her letter about a proposed contract for Questar -- which is supposed to produce a new Gifted and talented test for the city at a cost of $6 million, without any record I can find of having ever developed such an exam, or any exam for children as young as four years old.
Without knowing anything about the specifics in these contracts, whether they were competitively bid and/or whether the companies getting these contracts have been investigated for irregularities in the past, it makes it impossible for the public to be fully informed and be able to comment on these contracts in advance of the vote. Let's hope the Chancellor and the Contract Department of DOE listens -- as well as the PEP members stand up for enhanced transparency, accountability and the public's right to know.
Monday, November 10, 2014
How the DOE ignoring class size puts kids at risk, according to education professionals and parents
Check out the oped in Schoolbook by Jacqueline Shannon and Mark Lauterbach, professors of education, urging the Chancellor and the Mayor to lower class size in the city's schools: De Blasio Must put Reducing Class Sizes at Top of His Agenda. As the authors point out, the trend towards larger class sizes every year for the past six will underminethe success of the Mayor's other education initiatives, including special education inclusion, expanding preK and creating community schools.
They also show how the union contractual limits have not altered in forty years, despite the far more extensive research in recent years, including studies summarized in this NEPC report, showing the multiple benefits of smaller classes in terms of academic and life outcomes:
“Students who were originally assigned to small classes did
better than their school-mates who were assigned to regular-sized classes
across a variety of outcomes, including juvenile criminal behavior, teen
pregnancy, high school graduation, college enrollment and completion, quality
of college attended, savings behavior, marriage rates, residential location and
homeownership.”
The reality is that even in the city's most struggling schools, like Boys and Girls High School, where staff is being asked to re-apply to keep their positions, class sizes remain much too large -- with many classes at the union maximum of 34 students per class, according to the DOE's own class size reports from last fall.
The chart at the right reveals that class sizes at the Boys and Girls were inordinately high, particularly in 9th grade classes, where it's most important to keep students on track. Class sizes were lower in the upper grades, presumably because many of the school's students didn't get that far. Many of the special ed classes even violated the 12/1/1 limits, according to the DOE reports (see the last column for the size of the largest classes in each of these categories.)
Moreover, lowering class size remains the top priority of parents to improve their schools, according to the DOE's own Learning Environment Survey. And yet, there are only two parents on the committee to decide on staffing for Boys and Girls and Automotive HS, one to be chosen by the teachers union and the other by the principals union rather than other parents; and NO parent members on the committees to decide on the improvement strategies.
The DOE claims to be listening to parents more than the past administration; I'm not sure what that means if they continue to ignore their views on what their schools need to succeed.
The DOE claims to be listening to parents more than the past administration; I'm not sure what that means if they continue to ignore their views on what their schools need to succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)