An open letter about class sizes of 35-36 in 2nd grade at PS 85 in Queens

UPDATE:  I heard from Chancellor Fariña this (Friday) afternoon; she writes that an additional 2nd grade class will be opened.  Congrats to the parents -- and especially the 2nd graders at PS 85Q.

Class sizes last year in the early grades have steadily grown and last year were the largest in 15 years.  Unfortunately, the de Blasio administration has done nothing to reverse this damaging trend  -- despite specific promises he made during his campaign  --and refuses to allocate specific funds either from the state or the city to reduce class size.  The UFT contractual limits have also gone unchanged in 40 years -- though a few years ago, the DOE stopped recognizing a "side agreement" to cap class sizes at 28 in grades 1-3.  As a result the number of children in classes 30 or more have ballooned in these grades. Here is a letter from a parent leader I received today.  I fear more such reports once school starts.

Attn: Chancellor Fariña, Class Size Matters, NYC City Council, et. al.

To Whom It May Concern: 

 
My name is Randi Marshall and I am a parent at PS 85Q in Astoria. I have recently learned that the DOE has decided that our 2nd grade classes should be 36 and 35 students respectively - with no teaching assistant, despite UFT guidelines that say 32 is the absolute limit.

This is completely unacceptable and will set our children up to fail. It will create a chaotic learning environment, where no teacher can truly teach and no student can truly learn.

The principal of PS 85Q was prepared to create a third general education second grade classroom to allow for smaller class sizes; she even selected a new teacher, who has set up her classroom. But just this week, our principal learned that the DOE would not be approving the budget needed for that additional classroom, and that due to arcane and ridiculous rules, the school would not be able to have that additional classroom unless there were a total of 80 general education 2nd grade students (we currently have 71).

So, basically, the DOE is suggesting that officials believe that class size is okay unless it was  as high as 40 (!!!!!!!!!) children in each classroom. Can you imagine teaching 36 or 39 or 40 children in a single classroom with no aide? What child is going to learn in that environment? They don't even have room to write - or hang their coats - or sit on a rug for morning routine. They won't be able to raise their hands to answer a question because the teacher will barely be able to see them. They are seven and eight years old. They deserve better.

New York City has promised for the last SEVEN years to REDUCE class size, under the Contracts for Excellence laws. DOE received funding in exchange for those promises. And now the DOE has asked PS 85Q to hold two classes that are amongst the highest  - if not the highest - it has seen in those same seven years. The Contract for Excellence suggested that the class size goal for 2nd grade by 2011 should be 19.9. That's 20 students - compared with the 36 you are now asking a single teacher at PS 85Q to teach.

This is far from the "appropriate" education our students are promised in New York City.

PS 85Q is a tremendous school. But it can only continue its fabulous work if you don't stand in its way.

We must do better by these children. Please give our principal the opportunity to give these children the appropriate education they deserve. Please allow PS 85Q to open the additional classroom it had been planning - before the school year starts - to continue its amazing educational efforts. Please don't wait - because once these children start their education, you will only disrupt them further if you make the right decision but it is too late. I ask, I beg you in the DOE, the city council and our local District 30 office to make the right decision and do what you can to allow our 2nd grade students to thrive - not fail. And please act quickly.

I look forward to your reply - and this wrong being righted - as quickly as possible.

With my thanks,
Randi Marshall
PS 85Q Parent Association Co-President
917-647-7526
randi817@hotmail.com

Resolution on busing, with FOILed data showing DOE granted more busing thru safety variances to private school students

The DOE unilaterally eliminated middle-school busing from many areas of Queens and Staten Island that have no public transportation, and this may have contributed to the death of at least one public school student.  Along with some news clips, the data on how few safety variances the DOE has granted in authorizing busing in hazardous areas is here, FOILed by Michael Reilly of CEC 31.  What's somewhat shocking is how DOE has approved more safety variances authorizing busing for a greater proportion of private school students than public school students.

Here is the resolution introduced by Dmytro Fedkowskyj, Queens representative to the Panel for Educational Policy, asking to create advisory committee of stakeholders to oversee the process of granting busing variances, which was tabled  rejected  by the mayoral majority of appointees on the PEP at the last meeting.  Correction from Dmytro: the resolution was "tabled it until the next PEP meeting based on the conversation that PEP members had when it was introduced for business. It will be back on the agenda next month if we can't come to an agreement. I am hopeful that DOE will take action before the next meeting."

Panel Recommendation to the Chancellor that the Department of Education Create the “Safety Hazard Advisory Review Program (S.H.A.R.P.) for Office of Pupil Transportation Hazard Variance Applications – Dated January 18, 2012

Whereas, a joint NYC independent Budget Office and NYC Board of Education report stated “The proportion of general education pupils in public and private schools who currently ride yellow buses varies considerably  across boroughs”; and

Whereas, the Department of Education (DOE) eliminated certain school bus variances in September 2010 which disproportionately affected students in specific areas within the New York City, particularly in Queens and Staten Island; and

Whereas, the DOE Office of Pupil Transportation (OPT) stated at that time that individual variance applications would be reviewed and granted where appropriate; and

Whereas, according to DOE hazard variance application and approval data covering the period from January 2010 through September 2011, 1,130 applications were submitted (881 by public schools and 249 by private schools) but only 177 were approved citywide (108 or 12% for public schools and 69 or 28% for private schools) ; and

Whereas, 1,028 of the variance applications submitted during this time period (468 or 42% from schools in Queens) and (560 or 50% from schools in Staten Island) – the two boroughs acknowledged to have the greatest need for yellow bus service in the IBO/BoE report; and

Whereas, Queens submitted 468 applications with only 42 approved (18 or 5% for public schools and 24 or 34% for private schools) while Staten Island submitted 560 hazard variance applications and only 123 were approved (82 or 20% for public schools and 41 or 27% for private schools);

Therefore be it RESOLVED, that the Panel for Educational Policy, within its power under State Education law, recommends that the Chancellor authorize the DOE’s Office of Pupil Transportation to implement the following Safety Hazard Advisory Review Program (S.H.A.R.P.) to establish a standard operating procedure for reviewing hazard variance applications, while providing transparency to the variance process:

• Establish school district advisory committees by May 2012, based on a Community Education Council written request whose primary function will be to establish clear and concise criteria for granting hazard variances.

• The criteria for granting hazard variance could be modeled after a NYS Education Law 3635 (b) which establishes Child Safety Zones

o A list comprised of identifiable road hazards would be established
o Each road hazard will be assigned a point value
o Lack of adequate public transportation will also be allotted points
o In order to grant a pupil transportation hazard variance, a clearly defined total score must be achieved
o Each grade level will require a specific number of points to meet the eligibility requirements for a hazard variance.

• Each school district wanting to create S.H.A.R.P. committees would be comprised of nine (9) representatives; (3) Community Education Council members, (1) DISTRICT Community Superintendent, (3) DOE representatives from the Office of Pupil Transportation, (1) DOE Office of Parent and Community Engagement and (1) respective Borough President designee.
• Each S.H.A.R.P. committee will collectively analyze the conditions and grant hazard variances by majority consensus.

• Each S.H.A.R.P. committee will meet twice yearly. (September and February). DOE, OPT and individual schools will advertise the hazard variance application process in June of the preceding school year.

- Dmytro Fedkowskyj, Panel for Educational Policy, Queens Representative

District 30's resolution on Charter Schools

WHEREAS, the Department of Education (DOE) continues to site new Charter Schools in existing school buildings throughout New York City, where they take valuable classroom and administrative space from our traditional public schools; and

WHEREAS, the state’s highest court concluded that class sizes in New York City public schools are too large to provide our children with an adequate education; and

WHEREAS, District 30 is the second most overcrowded school district within New York City, with some of the largest class sizes; and

WHEREAS, residential development is proceeding rapidly especially in the Astoria/Long Island City areas, which have not been factored into the projected student enrollment; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Education has just announced plans to hopefully move yet another Charter School into District 30; and

WHEREAS, there was no consultation with Community Education Council District 30, Presidents' Council, parents within the community and the community at large, prior to Tweed’s staff coercing a Public Hearing and Presentation, stating that if the Council does not hold it, they will direct the Superintendent to hold a Special Public Hearing and Presentation; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Department of Education should immediately withdraw its unilateral and indefensible offer to provide valuable city tax-funded space in public school buildings to Charter Schools and that maximum space be reserved to alleviate overcrowding in nearby schools.

--passed May 13, 2008

Mark Weprin's City Council Testimony

The following is Assemblyman Mark Weprin's magnificent testimony before the City Council Education Committee on Dec. 10:

Good morning. I am Mark Weprin and I represent the 24th Assembly District in Eastern Queens. As a father of two public school students and a champion of New York City public schools, I submit the following testimony to the New York City Council on the subject of the New York City Department of Education (DOE)’s recently released school progress reports.

The progress reports are an attempt to inform the public about the
performance of New York City public schools. While I agree with DOE’s
focus on academic excellence, I take issue with its methodology and its
failure to fully explain the assessments to the public. The grades,
which were supposed to provide parents with valuable information, have
mostly generated confusion, and the media has exacerbated the situation
with fuzzy terminology: DOE’s Progress Reports have been regularly
referred to as report cards, which is a misnomer. The grades are meant
to show schools’ progress – which is not the same as school quality –
and they do not achieve even that much. While I support evaluating
public schools, I believe that DOE’s recent attempt falls far short of
its goals.

The first problem is that the category of “student progress” accounted
for fifty-five percent of a school’s grade, and the DOE equated student
progress with changes in test scores from one year to the next. So a
school in which the students scored the same for two years in a row is
considered to have shown no progress, even if most students did well
both years, while a school in which the students’ test scores increased,
even if they remained low, gets points for improvement. This method of
grading unfairly penalizes high-performing schools such as those in
Eastern Queens.

Even worse, DOE’s definition of academic progress is based on the idea
that high-stakes standardized tests accurately assess how much students
have learned, but there are several reasons to doubt that premise. As I
have often stated, the extreme emphasis on test preparation has taken
away from real learning in classrooms across the City. So if the
students in a school increased their test scores from one year to the
next, their “improvement” is just as likely to be a result of excessive
test preparation drills as a reflection of academic progress. And if
higher test scores stem from more time spent on test preparation, they
may in fact indicate that less learning has taken place.

On the other hand, a decrease in test scores could mean that a few
students were not feeling well on the day of the test, or that they
happened to choose the wrong answers on a couple of multiple choice
questions. If students’ scores went down from third grade to fourth
grade, maybe it’s because the third graders take each State test for two
days while the fourth graders spend three days per test. (New York’s bar
exam is only two days.) Test scores can decline for a number of reasons,
but the change does not mean that students and teachers in a school are
suddenly performing at a lower level than they did the previous year.

I also have serious reservations about the surveys of parents, students,
and teachers that the DOE used to evaluate the portion of a school’s
grade that reflects “school environment.” Every community has a few
naysayers who are always full of criticism. Unfortunately, they are the
most likely to submit surveys and to influence others to share in their
negativism. Such individuals can have a disproportionate impact on the
school’s grade.

The blatant inconsistencies in the grades reveal how ridiculous they
really are. Some schools that did well on their Quality Reviews did
poorly on the Progress Reports; some schools that were listed as among
the most persistently dangerous in New York received A’s and B’s from
DOE. What are parents to think when they receive such contradictory
information?

I have no qualms about the concept of issuing progress reports for New
York City schools. Any institution that uses taxpayer dollars must be
accountable to the public. But a single letter grade cannot possibly
represent everything the public needs to know about a school and its
progress. Fair evaluations would take into account student safety,
parent involvement, teacher qualifications, art and music offerings, and
the school’s learning environment. Feedback from parents and teachers
should come from large groups of survey responders who filled out clear,
intuitive questionnaires. Most of all, we should not rely on scores from
high-stakes standardized tests. Changes in test results from one year to
the next do not reveal what we really need to know about our schools:
how hard teachers and principals have worked and how much students have
learned. The Progress Reports are not report cards, and the DOE grades
simply are not accurate assessments of our schools.

Assemblymember Mark S. Weprin

56-21 Marathon Parkway

Little Neck, New York 11362



Telephone (718) 428-7900

Facsimile (718) 428-8575



weprinm@assembly.state.ny.us

Report on Queens Gifted & Talented Town Hall Meeting

About 60-70 parents attended the Thursday, Nov. 8th meeting at Hillcrest High School. Although some of the questions were similar to those at the Manhattan meeting (see our previous posting and InsideSchools blog for reports on that meeting) there were many other concerns and questions raised, including:

Q. How/why was the 95th percentile chosen as a cut-off?

A. Research shows that it is this group of students who need significant curriculum adjustment. This is the cut-off used by a number of other large, urban school districts, including LA, Philadelphia, Seattle etc.

Q. How do the OLSAT and BSRA test scores relate to Stanford-Binet?

A. Unlike Stanford-Binet, no IQ score is yielded by the tests the city has selected.

Q. Will students NOT currently enrolled in G&T programs who are at or above the entry grade still be allowed to test for open spots in upper grades?

A. Yes, at a later time in the spring. However, District 29 in Queens just started its G&T program this year with a 1st grade class, so no seats above 2nd grade will be available next year. (This was met with much disgruntlement and begs the question of why several grades weren't added all at once this year in this particular district since the DOE had a test available which could be administered to children in different grades?)

Q. A number of parents, including many whose children are currently in G&T programs raised questions and concerns about what the curriculum is once children are in the program. One parent said she's had several children in G&T classes over the years and she believes the classes have "degraded." She believes many G&T teachers are not state certified and don't know what a G&T curriculum is.

A. The DOE has and will continue to offer professional development and support to G&T teachers. In addition, the DOE website offers G&T units of study which are aligned with the state standards. Marcia Lyles added that on Nov. 7 she met with principals whose schools have G&T programs to share with them concerns over the curriculum.

Another parent added that in D24, G&T programs at two schools differ as to whether they use a grade-level math book or one which is a year advanced. If there is such a discrepancy within one district as to curriculum, what goes on citywide? Also, some more established G&T programs may get grants from elected officials or have more organized committees of parents to fundraise for "extras" for the G&T classes (e.g. Chess, Foreign Language, Theater), while new programs don't.

Q. A few parents had questions about busing for children enrolled in G&T programs. One parent from D24 said her elementary school child lives 5.22 miles from her district G&T program and has been refused yellow busing (for living over 5 miles away). The mother now takes her daughter on two buses and a subway to get her to school. Another parent added that Special Ed. Students are bused all over the city and kids in G&T programs should be eligible for busing as well.

A. No real answer – they asked for the one mother's name to look into her individual situation.

Q. Why are the three city-wide G&T programs, which serve the highest scoring students (97th percentile), all located in Manhattan (and with no transportation provided for those living in the other four boroughs)?

A. No real answer – perhaps the DOE will look into this.

Q. Why do almost all the programs in Queens begin in 1st grade while in Manhattan almost all begin in Kindergarten? (Incidentally, D24 had a K start for 20 or 25 years, but was forced to drop K two or three years ago by the Region 4 G&T Director - who hailed from D30, which had a 1st grade start. The D24 CEC passed a resolution a year or two ago that the K start should continue, to no avail.)

A. No real answer. Ms. Lyles indicated that it was a decision made by the districts, then amended to say the regions. When asked how individual districts in Queens could go back to a K start, she had no answer.

Q. Are class sizes in G&T classes capped? One parent stated there were 34 children in her child's G&T class.

A. There are no special caps for gifted classes – they can go up to the contractual limits.

(Note:This is misleading – there are caps in some places, whether they be formal or informal – e.g. in D24 – 25 children are admitted to K-3 classes and then, perhaps, 30 for 4th and 5th grade. Other districts may have lower caps (D30?) and the city-wide programs are also allowed to keep their class sizes small (e.g. Anderson keeps 5th grade at 28).

Q. What is the plan for G&T students at the Middle School level?

A. This proposal only covers elementary school programs. OSEPO will be working on a middle school catalog, but there is no proposal to change G&T on the middle school level.

(Note: Again, this is an area where there are distinct differences around the city. D24 just added two "middle school gifted programs" this year with a proposal to have the students take 4 or 5 Regents exams by 8th grade as well as the Foreign Language test (Checkpoint-A). Instead of having 8-10 periods of English and Math per week, the plan is for these students to only have 5 or 6, thus allowing additional time in their schedules for Music, Foreign Language, Robotics etc. Do other districts have such distinct programs for middle school students? Furthermore, there is variation on whether, once admitted in K or 1st grade, students can make a seamless transition to middle school. In D30, the G&T program which begins in 1st and 2nd grade allows students to remain through 8th grade, without requalifying, even though they are the only 6-8th graders in an otherwise K-5 school – P.S. 122. Other districts require 5th graders to apply and qualify for middle school programs.)

Questions there wasn't time for:

1. It was mentioned by DOE officials that once a child is in a G&T program at a specific site in their district, they cannot transfer schools to a different G&T program. Why this is the case was not elaborated upon, but wouldn't it make sense that if one program is doing a "better" job than another or offering a better G&T curriculum and/or more enrichment opportunities, that parents might want the option to transfer?

2. Since many districts may have to add G&T programs, where will all the certified teachers come from? (Even if a few G&T programs are eliminated, there is no guarantee that those teachers will move from the schools where the currently teach.)

3. Why not create additional classes at higher grades if enough children test at the 95th percentile? Parents of current 2nd and 3rd graders expressed concern that their children would only be able to compete for an extremely small number of seats which open up in the higher grades. If a child has newly moved into a district, didn't perform up to his/her abilities when tested in a previous year, is an immigrant who has now sufficiently developed English skills, etc. shouldn't the DOE be able to accommodate them at higher grades?

--Reported by Marge Kolb, CPAC Rep. for District 24