There were about fifty people in the audience at the Grover
Cleveland High School receivership hearings yesterday -- not great for a school that enrolls nearly
2,000 students, but not terrible considering it was a beautiful Saturday
morning and the hearing announcement was made just a few days before.
I entered the auditorium at about 10:20 AM, as someone from the DOE whose name I didn’t catch was wrapping up a brief presentation about Receivership schools, saying that the administration was still considering whether “receivership schools will get Renewal [school] type supports and funding.”
I entered the auditorium at about 10:20 AM, as someone from the DOE whose name I didn’t catch was wrapping up a brief presentation about Receivership schools, saying that the administration was still considering whether “receivership schools will get Renewal [school] type supports and funding.”
Principal Denise Vittor followed with a power point
presentation showing how the school was improving its graduation rate and attendance
– the two data points that apparently had placed it on the state list of “struggling
schools” for possible Receivership.
The four-year June graduation rate last year rose to 60.7% compared to 53% in 2012-13; the August four-year rate is 62.5% compared to 60.2% two years before. If only those students eligible for a regular diploma were counted, its four year rate was up to 63.9%. Apparently 2.2% of the students are severely disabled, and according to the principal, only “eligible” for the alternate credentials of the SACC (Skills and Achievement Commencement Credential) or the CDOS (Career Development and Occupational Studies Commencement Credential.) The six year graduation rate increased to 69.5%, and attendance at 82.5% last year, compared to 78% in 2012-13.
The four-year June graduation rate last year rose to 60.7% compared to 53% in 2012-13; the August four-year rate is 62.5% compared to 60.2% two years before. If only those students eligible for a regular diploma were counted, its four year rate was up to 63.9%. Apparently 2.2% of the students are severely disabled, and according to the principal, only “eligible” for the alternate credentials of the SACC (Skills and Achievement Commencement Credential) or the CDOS (Career Development and Occupational Studies Commencement Credential.) The six year graduation rate increased to 69.5%, and attendance at 82.5% last year, compared to 78% in 2012-13.
She then went on to describe various programs the schools had instituted,
including “Common Core aligned curriculum units,” AP courses, a Saturday
academy, Afterschool Expanded Learning Time, blended learning and CTE programs.
The one new program for this year is “schoolwide implementation of PBIS (Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports) , which are alternative
ways of dealing with school discipline.
Then two DOE representatives and the Principal
answered questions that had been written on index cards by members of the
audience:
·
What resources has the school received under the
Renewal program? Answer: Extended
learning time and more professional development.
·
Is there a plan to reduce class size, especially
considering that last year there were classes as large as 54 in math, 37 in
English and 38 in Social Studies?
Answer: Most of our classes last year met the legal limit ( meaning the UFT contractual limit of 34 students per class).
·
What funding is there for electronic
resources? Answer: We receive $22,000 from NYSTL
(New York State Textbook Law) funds, and Reso
A funds from the City Council for smartboards.
·
Can CTE programs for the health
professions be added? Answer: Unfortunately not; nursing
CTE programs require class sizes of nine, and we don’t have the funds.
·
Why is the school receiving only 82% of its Fair
Student Funding (FSF)? Answer: FSF was developed as an “ideal” funding
level; while all Renewal schools are receiving 100% FSF, it is uncertain if the
school will receive a higher share of its FSF until a team at DOE looks into
the “comprehensive needs” of the school.
At that time new resources may be allocated.
·
How can a school boost its enrollment when
letters were sent out saying the school may be closing? Answer: The Chancellor is committed to not closing
schools, though we’re obligated to send letters about struggling and
persistently struggling schools (to whom?).
The principal added that community members and parents should help “re-brand”
the school, and let people know that we’re on a fast track to coming off the
struggling list.
·
How can I participate as a parent towards
helping the school? Answer: Come to our
monthly PA meetings; we also have workshops you can attend.
Members of the audience were invited to speak. Several teachers noted that as the school
lost enrollment, it had also lost funding leading to increased class sizes. Parents suggested that the school could
provide more information to them about class assignments, etc. by sending
messages to their cell phones; these messages should also be translated into their native languages. Students proposed that more clubs and
activities like cheerleading and fencing would help create more spirit in the
school.
One neighborhood resident announced she was a graduate of
the high school, as was her mother. She
hoped that the school would not be closed, to be converted into a specialized or
selective school instead, as she wanted her daughter who had an IEP to be able to attend
the school. She then asked, what has happened
in the past when the state took over schools?
Have they improved? (Her question went unanswered, but a truthful
response would be no.)
A Queens UFT representative thanked the Chancellor and the
Mayor for taking a “different approach” than the previous administration, and
addressing students’ “social and emotional needs.” David Aglialoro, Communications Director from Cathy Nolan’s
office, read a statement from the Assemblymember. As a 1976 graduate, AM Nolan stands behind the
school, recognizes that is getting back on track, and believes that with the right
support and resources it can be “the best version of itself.” Among other things, she recommended that the school
be transformed into a Community school, and that its swimming pool be opened on
the weekends to neighborhood residents.
Evelyn Cruz, Chief of Staff of Congresswoman Velázquez observed that it was "unconstitutional" that the school still is burdened with such large class sizes,
especially given how many students are linguistically diverse and are struggling to
learn a new language. The school requires
more resources to hire additional teachers; with smaller classes, she pointed out, the students would
be less likely to walk out of class because they don’t comprehend the material. The school also needs dedicated funding for more
guidance counselors.
I followed by saying that I was glad to hear of some of the
promising ways the school was improving its results, but none of these
measures have the rigorous research behind them that class size reduction does. The fact that “most” of the classes met the
legal limit of 34 last year is not good enough, especially as in 2007, NYC
promised the state as part of the Contracts for Excellence law to reduce class size to an average of 25 in high schools
citywide. In all struggling high schools
like Grover Cleveland, class sizes should immediately be capped at 25 or less.
I briefly went through the Chancellor’s “Framework
for Great Schools,” a copy of which with space for feedback had been handed out to the audience, and explained how each of its six elements would be difficult to achieve without reducing class size:
“Rigorous instruction” is nearly impossible to attain when there are thirty or more students in a class, many of them English Language Learners, unable to get enough feedback or practice speaking to be “actively engaged in in ambitious intellectual activity” or “develop critical thinking skills,” as the Framework demands.
How can there be a truly “Supportive Environment” for students with classes this large, with too little individualized attention to feel “safe, supported, and challenged by their teachers and peers”? As for “Collaborative Teachers,” do teachers really have “a culture of respect and continuous improvement” when burdened with excessive class sizes and a teaching load of a 150 or more students?
“Rigorous instruction” is nearly impossible to attain when there are thirty or more students in a class, many of them English Language Learners, unable to get enough feedback or practice speaking to be “actively engaged in in ambitious intellectual activity” or “develop critical thinking skills,” as the Framework demands.
How can there be a truly “Supportive Environment” for students with classes this large, with too little individualized attention to feel “safe, supported, and challenged by their teachers and peers”? As for “Collaborative Teachers,” do teachers really have “a culture of respect and continuous improvement” when burdened with excessive class sizes and a teaching load of a 150 or more students?
Can “Effective School Leadership” be maintained, affording“the instructional and social-emotional support
that drives student achievement” when students are crammed into classes of thirty
or more?
It would also be far easier to create “Strong Family and Community Ties” if each teacher had fewer students, with the time to reach out to parents when their children are succeeding as well as when they are falling behind. Finally, it is difficult to see how real “Trust” can be attained, when the administration is ignoring what is the top priority of parents citywide for school improvement – class size reduction.
It would also be far easier to create “Strong Family and Community Ties” if each teacher had fewer students, with the time to reach out to parents when their children are succeeding as well as when they are falling behind. Finally, it is difficult to see how real “Trust” can be attained, when the administration is ignoring what is the top priority of parents citywide for school improvement – class size reduction.
After the hearing
was over, I spoke to several teachers at the school. They all confirmed that this fall, class sizes remain
at about the contractual maximum of 34 students per class or more; and that even
English Language Learners are not provided with smaller classes. This is clearly unacceptable. While the
graduation and attendance rates at the school may continue to inch upwards, the quality of
education at this school and others like it will not fundamentally improve
without a concerted effort to provide more targeted
resources so that class sizes can be capped at 25 or less.
The list of schools faced with receivership along with hearing dates is here; comments
also can be submitted here, no later than 5:00 p.m. on the second business day after each school's hearing date. Translated versions of the School Receivership Public Feedback form can be found here for submission as well.
The list of schools faced with receivership along with hearing dates is here; comments
also can be submitted here, no later than 5:00 p.m. on the second business day after each school's hearing date. Translated versions of the School Receivership Public Feedback form can be found here for submission as well.