Receivership schools, class size and nine years of broken promises to our kids from the DOE: a letter from the Education Law Center

Check out the letter below from Wendy Lecker of the Education Law Center, asking Commissioner Elia if she is going to approve NYC's deeply flawed Contracts for Excellence plan, a "plan" in name only that does not even pretend to reduce class size citywide and thus does not comply with the state C4E law passed in 2007.

Even in the limited number of 90 plus Renewal schools the DOE says it has focused its class size reduction efforts on for the last few years, very few of these schools significantly reduced class size.  Last year, only seven out of 94 Renewal capped class sizes at the original (and fairly modest) C4E goals of 20 students in grades K-3, 23 students in 4th -8th grade and 25 students in high school classes -- which would still be larger than class sizes averages in the rest of the state.

This is flagrantly unacceptable.  Since 2007, DOE has promised to reduce class size in its lowest-performing schools.  For the first 7 years or so, this involved a list of 75 low-performing schools with especially large class sizes.  None of these schools ever lowered class size to acceptable levels, and many of these schools have now been closed.  Others have continued to struggle.  Promises have been repeatedly made to these children, to parents, and to the state, and repeatedly broken, and the state hasn't even bothered to pretend to care. For the last three years, DOE has promised to reduce class size at the Renewal schools.  This hasn't happened either.

The three most persistently struggling NYC schools, according to the state, are all Renewal schools in the Bronx.  They have been on various permutations of the failing list for at least a decade.  They are middle schools, composed primarily of students from low-income families with large numbers of English language learners and special needs children: JHS 162 Lola Rodriguez De Tio in District 7, IS 117 Joseph H. Wade, and JHS 22 Jordan Mott, both in District 9.

JHS 162 and IS 117 have been on the city's priority list for class size reduction since 2007, when the Contract for Excellence law was first passed; JHS 22 since 2009.  Yet DOE has never bothered to cap class sizes in these three schools at levels that would guarantee significant progress. Though JHS 162 did finally lower average class size to 22 last year, many classes remained as large as 28 in all four core subjects, according to DOE data.  JHS 22 actually increased class size last year, and also had classes of 28 students.  At  IS 117, class sizes not only increased, but grew to 29 students per class on average.  Many core classes were as large as 33-34 students --which are so large they actually violate the UFT limits for Title I middle schools  -- supposed to be capped at 30 students per class.

On Wednesday it was announced that JHS 162 will be put into receivership, having made the least progress of the three schools in terms of test scores. Within 60 days, Chancellor Fariña must appoint an outside individual or organization to manage the school, merge or close it. If it is closed it will join the many NYC schools that met this fate without the DOE officials having tried the most obvious method -- and the method they promised to carry out -- to improve them.

Below Wendy's letter is the testimony she earlier submitted on C4E.  The excellent ELC report she cites showing growing class sizes over the last nine years is posted here.

ELC Letter to Commissioner Elia Re NYC C4E Plan by Leonie Haimson on Scribd

Education Law Center C4E Testimony 2016-17 by Leonie Haimson on Scribd

The lawsuit just filed on behalf of the receivership schools

Wendy Lecker, one of the attorneys from the Education Law Center who sued the State Division of the Budget and the State Education Education last week for denying funds to struggling schools on behalf of parents, wrote this summary of the case below.  Three of the schools are in NYC as explained below.  More on how these schools intended to use these funds are here.  Here is the verified petition.

Attorney Wendy Lecker

On September 2, parents from Albany, Yonkers and New York City filed a lawsuit against the state seeking the release of receivership grant money that the Division of Budget is withholding from their children’s schools, as well as six other schools across the state.  

In 2015, New York State passed Education law 211-f, known as the Receivership Law, which directed the Commissioner of Education to designate New York public schools as “persistently failing” based on test scores and other outcome data. Appropriations legislation also passed in 2015 directed that these “persistently failing” schools were eligible to receive $75 million in funding for two-year grants.

The appropriations law mandated that the State Education Department (“SED”) develop an expenditure plan for these “transformation grants,”  that the Division of Budget (“DOB”) approve that expenditure plan, and that DOB then release the grant money pursuant to that spending plan.  

SED developed the plan in October 2015, and it was approved by DOB on October 15, 2015. The plan specifically provided for two-year grants for twenty schools, including the schools at issue in this lawsuit: Roosevelt High School, in Yonkers, William S. Hackett Middle School, in Albany, and JHS 80 The Mosholu Parkway Middle School in the Bronx. The plan also set forth the amount each school would receive over the two years.  All twenty schools applied for and received the two-year grants set forth in the spending plan. Nothing in either the spending plan nor in the applications indicated that these schools would forfeit the second year of their grants should their performance improve.

The three schools used these grants to provide mental health services and other social supports to students, extra academic support and enrichment, and professional development- all designed to improve student learning conditions and performance.

In February 2016, Commissioner Elia determined, based on student outcome data, that nine of the twenty schools were no longer considered “persistently failing.”  SED declared in February 2016 that the nine schools removed from the “persistently failing” list  “will continue to be eligible to receive funding in 2016-17 from a state grant to support and strengthen their school improvement efforts.”

However, Governor Cuomo directed the Division of Budget to withhold the second year of grant funding from these nine schools, in direct violation of the law and the statutorily-mandated spending plan approved by the DOB.

In addition to Roosevelt, Hackett and JHS 80, the six other schools affected by the DOB’s decision to withhold the grant funding are: Grant Middle School in Syracuse; three schools in Buffalo including the Elementary School of Technology, Burgard Vocational High School, and South Park High School; and Automotive High School and PS 328 Phyllis Wheatley School in Brooklyn.

Parents are outraged that Governor Cuomo is punishing these schools for improving by taking away the very resources that will help them continue to improve. 

SED continues to maintain that the transformational grant funding should be released. SED spokesperson Emily DeSantis, was quoted in the New York Times as declaring: “It makes no sense to take away funding from schools that have just started to show progress and that need all the support and resources we can give them.”

The parties are due in State Supreme Court in Albany on September 23, at 9 a.m.

Notes from Grover Cleveland HS receivership hearing; can the Chancellor's "Framework for Great Schools" be achieved with class sizes as large as 55?

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.”

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.

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?

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. 

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.