The cell phone arguments by Ellen Bilofsky

Beginning last Thursday, when Justice Shirley Kornreich concluded that that the administration had illegally circumvented laws requiring public review when they tore up Randalls Island to create fields for private schools, then Tuesday, when judges criticized the manner in which Debbie Almontaser was fired from her job as principal of the Khalil Gibran school, and yesterday, when the parent lawsuit against the ban on cell phones was argued before the Appellate branch, the Mayor and Joel Klein have had a really bad week in court.

See this from NY Times article about the cell phone arguments:

One justice, David B. Saxe, remarked that if the chancellor, Joel I. Klein, had been more directly accountable to parents — instead of the mayor — he would probably be out of a job by now.

“I suspect that in a smaller school district, if the school superintendent tried such a ban, they’d probably fire the whole school board,” Justice Saxe said. But, he added, parents “can’t easily fire the chancellor.”

See below observations from Ellen Bilofsky, one of the parent plaintiffs in the lawsuit:

Oral arguments in the appeal of the cell phone lawsuit (Price v. New York City Board of Education) left parents and lawyers feeling hopeful that the five-judge state appeals panel might reverse the negative ruling in the suit to overturn the ban on possession of phones in schools. Although the five-judge panel lobbed some hostile questions at our lawyers, in the end they seemed to "get it": that banning cell phones outright is not about educational policy. For the DOE, it's about control and convenience, while for parents it's a safety issue and the right to promote our kids' well-being.

Justice Andrias commented that his son used to be gone from 8:00 in the morning till 8:00 at night and he never heard from him or knew where he was. (We all figured that Justice Andrias might not have known his son's whereabouts, but his wife surely did.)

But casual comments such as this one fail to take into account how much the world has changed since they--or their children--went to school. Most mothers are at work now, rather than at home keeping close track of their kids' whereabouts, so family arrangements are much more complicated. The advent of cell phones themselves means that there are few pay phones inside schools or on the streets for children to use. No Child Left Behind, among other educational trends, means that many more children of all ages are traveling far from their home schools on public transportation. And the events of 9/11, along with a number of school shootings, have increased parents' concerns about the inability of schools to keep their children safe in school, let alone before and after.

In any case, the other judges gave the DOE a harder time about what the basis for the policy was (the DOE said they didn't need to show any), whether they had looked for any alternatives (we know they didn't), and whether they had looked into policies in other districts.

Civil liberties attorney Norman Siegel waved his silenced cell phone to demonstrate that it was possible to possess a cell phone but not use it. The DOE's refusal to believe that public school students are capable of doing that (while private school students are accorded that right) is an insult to students and parents alike, he said. The lawyers also noted that the number of cell phone incidents the DOE had cited in their briefs amounted to less than two incidents per school per year--not much of a basis for banning them.

For more news on the arguments in court, see the AP story , Daily News and NY Sun.

Public Advocate’s Office to Seek Data on DOE’s Random Scanning Program

Last Thursday, January 3, the DOE’s random scanning team appeared on the doorstep of Benjamin Cardozo High School to execute their standard cell phone and iPod seizure program. Regardless whether weapons or dangerous instruments were found, one thing is certain: Cardozo’s attendance rate dropped from 83.9% on January 2 to 73.9% on scanning day. Given Cardozo’s register of 3,907 students, the DOE’s mobile search and seizure program created about 390 extra truants that day, and about 2,350 extra missed academic periods. [This 10% drop matches the 9.7 percentage point drop in attendance at Forest Hills High School when that school was subjected to random scanning on September 11 of this school year, resulting in 326 extra absences beyond the school’s normal rate.]

Amid discussions and questions raised by various parents about Cardozo and the DOE’s random scanning program on the NYC Education News listserv on January 3, the following response was posted:

I am writing you on behalf of the Public Advocate. As you may know, Betsy Gotbaum has long opposed the DOE's policy of turning schools into armed camps. She has also spoken out against the cell phone ban, citing parents' rightful concern for their children's safety. Furthermore, she has serious problems with and has raised objection to the lack of fiscal accountability at the DOE. Parents and taxpayers alike deserve answers to the questions you ask. Our office will be writing to the DOE as you have suggested. When we get a response we will post it here. Tomas Hunt, Office of the Public Advocate

I have since sent a letter to Mr. Hunt that includes the following ten questions, in the hope that the Public Advocate’s Office can secure data and answers from the DOE:

1. What are the dates, school names, and results (number of weapons, other dangerous items, and cellphones, iPods, and other electronics confiscated) from the inception of this program through year-end 2007?
2. For items categorized as weapons or dangerous items, what were those items (that is, were they guns, knives, chains, and brass knuckles or were they scissors, math compasses, laser pointers, and pocket knives)?
3. What was the daily attendance rate at each of these schools for the three school days immediately preceding the random scanning date(s) and/or the school’s Year-to-Date daily attendance rate immediately preceding the scanning?
4. What was the daily attendance rate for the date(s) that random scanning took place?
5. Has the DOE through its responsible school safety office conduct any controlled study of the deterrent effect of random scanning on students carrying weapons or other dangerous items? If so, when, where, how, and what were the results?
6. How many persons in the DOE and/or School Safety are assigned to the random scanning program?
7. How many portable scanners has the DOE purchased for this program, and what was their total cost? What is their annual maintenance cost?
8. What is the annualized cost to operate this program in terms of personnel and equipment expenses for transport, set-up, operation of the equipment, search and confiscation of students’ property, logging and bagging of confiscated items, and disassembling this scanners for removal?
9. What are the costs of additional personnel attached to this program for outside the building security (to keep students from leaving the area or otherwise hiding their property when they see that scanning is taking place)?
10. What are the costs of additional personnel assigned to this program for recordkeeping, reporting, and program administration?

In a final but hardly amusing irony, Mr. Hunt’s email acknowledging receipt of my letter included the following anecdote:

Just last week Betsy [Gotbaum] and I entered a high school where we both were sent through the magnetron and on the other side four school safety agents surrounded Betsy told her to put her hands on a desk and to spread her legs as she was wanded-down. We were there with a principal from the building who was pleading with guards not to do this, but they did it anyway. It can seem like sense and purpose has given way to force and order.

The million program: DOE's new cell phone project as ingenious marketing tool?

See the article in Advertising Age, revealing a new twist in the DOE project, originally devised by Roland Fryer to offer cell phones to students, supposedly as an incentive to improve their academic performance.

It’s now being branded as “The Million program” – referring to the 1.1 million students in the NYC public schools. This proposal was originally described as an “experiment” but is now said to involve 10,000 to 11,000 students in its first year alone - and is apparently being pitched to potential sponsors as a way to market their products to all NYC students in the near future.

According to David Droga, an ad maven involved in the project, who revealed details to Advertising Age's Idea Conference last Thursday,

“There'll also be some room for advertising on the phone. After all, the phones, while provided for free to the students, won't be completely without cost. As such, marketers will be able to infiltrate the students' world through "responsible" sponsorships….There's lots and lots of brands out there that have a place in the students' lives," said Mr. Droga, who wouldn't disclose the specific advertisers because of ongoing negotiations.”

There may also be product “discounts” offered in text messages, according to Droga – a good way to sell more products.

So let me get this straight: this administration will continue to deny cell phones to students who need to communicate with their parents on their way to or from school, or in case of an emergency. But they will be offered as a way to sell them products?

This project is quickly turning into a potential goldmine for some lucky advertising agency as well as a host of possible commercial sponsors, and yet another opportunity to drain the pockets of NYC kids and their parents.

SCHOOL NETS THOUSANDS WITH “DUNK-THE-KLEIN” GAME

November 11, 2007 (Gadfly News)

A public elementary school in Brooklyn that has requested it remain anonymous received an unexpected windfall on Saturday during their annual fall fair, netting thousands of extra dollars for their PTA because of an unusual attraction. The game was Dunk-the-Clown – with a difference.

As is customary, a clown sitting on a chair hurled taunts and insults at the fair-goers, while they took turns throwing balls at him, attempting to dunk him in the basin of water below. But the clown was Joel I. Klein, NYC Schools Chancellor.

“Your school gets an F!” Mr. Klein shouted.

Or was it Mr. Klein? A label across his chest proclaimed he was, but a woman in the crowd revealed, “It’s actually Joe Ruiz, president of our PTA. Our school got an undeserved bad grade on the school report cards last week. Our principal and teachers were pretty demoralized, so people around here are a little angry. We know how hard our teachers work, and frankly, we’d all like to take a shot at Klein.”

From his perch atop the game, Mr. Ruiz shouted a steady stream of insults. Some were about the marked increase in standardized testing in the schools. When a group of students stepped up to the plate, he shouted, “I’m going to give you more tests! More tests! More!”

When a teacher took her turn, Mr. Ruiz cracked an imaginary whip and shouted, “Test prep! Test prep! Test prep!”

When a parent took aim, Mr. Ruiz addressed the issue of the cell phone ban. Referring to a statement made repeatedly by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, that parents want their children to carry cell phones to school merely so they can ask them what they want for dinner, Mr. Ruiz shouted, “What do you want, chicken or fish?”

Notably, the principal of the school did not hurl a ball, though she smiled appreciatively at those who did. As she stood on the sidelines, Mr. Ruiz taunted her with comments about the repeated reorganizations of the schools. “I’m replacing the districts with regions! No! I’ve decided to do away with the regions! Ha! Ha! Who’s going to help you now?

The crowd, which appeared unruly, attracted the attention of a uniformed police officer patrolling the neighborhood, though when the officer saw what was going on, he joined the line himself. “I’d like a piece of this guy,” he said. “Last winter my daughter’s bus route got cancelled. She waited hours in the cold for a school bus that never came, and now, to get to school, she has to cross a busy highway by herself.”

A quick sampling of those waiting take shots at the “Chancellor” revealed that many were not from the school hosting the fair.

“My daughter goes to high school in the Bronx,” said one man. “She has to take 2 subways, so she checks in with us each leg of the trip. But last spring, the DOE confiscated her cell phone. It took us 3 days to get it back. I had to lose a day of work to go demand it.”

Behind him, another woman said, “My son is in third grade at a neighboring school. This week his teacher announced she just can’t take it anymore. She’s accepted a job in Westchester. Twice the pay for a fraction of the aggravation.”

By the end of the day, the school hosting the fair had netted over $10,000 at the dunking game.

Mr. Bloomberg, reached at a $5,000-a-plate fundraising dinner for the private school his daughter had attended, was asked his reaction to the outpouring of anger at his schools chancellor. “Running a school system is not a popularity contest,” he said curtly. “You get a few disgruntled parents out there and they do a lot of whining.”

But Mr. Ruiz dismissed Mr. Bloomberg’s comment. “A few?” he said, fanning a fat stack of bills. “Ten thousand dollars at a dollar a pop? I’d call that a lot of angry parents. Maybe I should call the mayor’s cell phone and ask him what he’s eating there at his black-tie dinner. Chicken? Or crow?"

-- by Jan Carr

Why our kids need their cell phones by Dorothy Giglio

I recently received notification from my elder son's college that they were setting up an "urgent notification system" which would allow them to send out emergency information to students, faculty & staff in a variety of ways, like text messages, phone calls and instant messages.

This system was set up as a result of the Virginia Tech shootings and the recent gun incident on St. Johns Campus. The school recognized that we live in difficult times and that it was their responsibility to see that their students and staff were protected to the greatest extent possible.

While our colleges recognize the dangers today and the manner in which modern electronic communications can be used to try to minimize them, It is unconscionable that our Mayor and Chancellor continue their irrational ban on cell phones. It is not, as they are so fond of stating over and over, that parents just want to discuss with their children the dinner menu each day.

Though I pray that we never have a real crisis in any school, even for the purposes of the citywide train delays and shutdowns from flooding as occurred recently in Queens, or the gas line explosion in Manhattan over the summer, large number of traveling kids could certainly benefit from a message warning them of these emergencies.

We have tried so many ways, through the courts, the City Council, etc. to overturn the ban. Though our colleges and universities and private schools are all taking steps to ensure the safety of their students, the people who should most care about the welfare of our public school children seem to not care at all.

Dorothy Giglio

Co President James Madison HS
Former President President Council Reg 6 HS
Former President President Council District 22, Brooklyn

Should cell phones be allowed in schools?

On WCBS news yesterday, Maria Dapontes-Daughterty, the President of the Presidents Council in D30 Queens and I were interviewed by Marcia Kramer about how recent shooting incidents at the Success Tech HS in Cleveland and St. John’s University in Queens underlined the need for our children to be able to carry their cell phones in school.

WCBS ran the anguished recording of a Cleveland mom, calling the police after her son had contacted her by cell phone, while hiding from the gunman in a closet at school. This was juxtaposed with a clip of Bloomberg, scoffing that parents only want to contact their kids " to find out whether they want beef or fish for dinner."

The story also makes the point that the lockers outside would not help if there was an attack within a NYC public school. It's a powerful bit of news -- check out the full transcript and the video here: Should cell phones be allowed in NYC schools?

City Council hearings on parent involvement

The hearings on parental involvement before the City Council on Thursday offered some fireworks -- and real insights. Because there was no media coverage of these important hearings, here is a detailed account.

Full disclosure: I wasn't there the whole time, so have cobbled together this report from some trustworthy sources who were. I have also posted links to the full written testimonies for those that we have available.

As usual, DOE got the prime morning slot, and Council members grilled Deputy Mayor Walcott and Chief Family Engagement officer Martine Guerrier for several hours.

The Chair, Robert Jackson, started off by mentioning that the only office in DOE that has no website link was the Office of Family Engagement. He said that he had two staff members try to get in touch with the Office by calling 311. In both cases, operators told them that there was no such office and directed them to old regional office phones that were disconnected. Walcott gave him a cursory apology and said he would make sure that 311 operators knew where to direct parents from now on. Guerrier commented that they are still working on a webpage for the OFE and that it should be working soon.

Jackson also said that the new parent brochure—“The NYC Family Guide” -- came out on September 18^th, nearly two weeks after the beginning of the school year. It was later noted that there is no phone number for Guerrier’s office in it —only for the district offices. In the section “How Families Find Answers,” parents are instructed to call the school parent coordinator first (appointed and accountable to the principal, of course) and, if they cannot get their problem answered there, to call the district offices and ask for the District Family Advocate.

Guerrier testified that she was convinced of the "sincerity on the part of the administration” to change the tone of their interaction with parents. Her five goals by July 2008 are that all PTAs should have elected officers, all School Leadership Teams will be “functioning”, all Community Education Councils will have full membership, and that the DOE parent survey will receive a greater response rate. (Her powerpoint presentation, with more information, in pdf , is here.)

Jackson challenged Guerrier on how her office might also help ensure that DOE policies actually begin to take into account parental concerns. Jackson, Vallone, Liu and Ignizio addressed the Department's chronic neglect of the problem of class size, and DOE's attempt to manipulate the parent survey results. Walcott smoothly responded that they are reducing class size and that the results of the survey are out there for anyone to see. He also claimed that "the Mayor's doors at City Hall are and always be open to parents." (!!)

The other two areas of major attention were the cell phone ban and the administration's proposed revisions of the regulations concerning School Leadership Teams (SLTs), which will eviscerate their authority to provide real input into school budgets. Fidler was especially aggressive on the lack of input that parents have on school closings and the installation of charter schools in their communities. He also threatened a lawsuit if DOE doesn’t abide by the Council legislation on cell phones.

When the two DOE officials departed, so did as usual most of the Council members and the media. Finally, the rest of us got a chance to speak our minds. (It is ironic that Council members who are so vehement about the fact that DOE doesn’t listen to us almost uniformly are absent when any parent testifies.) Only Robert Jackson stayed on to listen.

Joan McKeever Thomas, UFT parent liaison, said that the Chancellor's proposed changes to the SLTs, in which these teams of parents and staff will compose comprehensive education plans only after the principal has already unilaterally decided on the school budget, would render them essentially meaningless. They would become "redundant organizations, talk shops with no direction or larger purpose."

Patrick Sullivan, Manhattan representative on the Panel for Educational Policy and a fellow blogger here, agreed that the new regulations would disempower parents, and added that "Parents are marginalized by the manner in which the PEP public meetings are structured: all public comment is relegated to the end of the session after all voting has concluded...[This] makes it painfully obvious that parental input is not being taken into consideration on the most important issues facing our school system."

Kim Sweet, Executive Director of Advocates for Children pointed out that now, parents who have concerns or complaints about their schools are being directed by DOE to the Office of Family Engagement, which lacks any ability to address these problems:

"District Family Advocates and their supervisors have no authority whatsoever over the principals; they are not even in the same chain of command. ... Parents with complaints are being funneled to the District Family Advocates, rather than to DOE officials who have the authority to respond to their concerns. This structure does not promote parent engagement; it promotes parent disenfranchisement."

Shana Marks-Odinga from the Alliance for Quality Education said that the recent borough hearings on the Contracts for Excellence were rushed and without parents being provided with enough details to be able to give sufficient input. She recommended that “Public engagement around the 2008-9 Contract for Excellence should begin in October 2007 to ensure a meaningful process" and that a parent complaint process be instituted, according to the new state law.

Miguel Melendez, Latino activist and former DOE employee, pointed out that there were no Hispanics in the inner circle at Tweed or among the top level of the Office of Family Engagement; this is unacceptable considering that Latino students make up 40% of the system. He also revealed that “On four separate occasions (May 24th, 30th, July 2nd, and August 2nd, 2007) the National Institute for Latino Policy has requested Equal Employment Opportunity data only to be denied each and every time.”

Ellen McHugh of Parent to Parent noted that there was no information for parents of special needs children in the DOE family guide. Jim Devor, acting president of the Association of CECs, pointed out that while it was commendable that DOE had instituted a 30 day public comment period for the proposed revision of the SLT role, under the new system, “most of the major decisions regarding school policy will have already been made (without meaningful input by parents)" before the process of writing the schools’ CEP has begun.

Several representatives from the Chancellor’s Parent Advisory Council testified. Tim Johnson, CPAC chair, reiterated that parents continue to be left out of the loop as to major policies adopted by this administration. David Quintana, CPAC rep from D 27 in Queens, said that parent coordinators were being used to deflect the concerns of parents away from principals.

Then I spoke briefly, pointing out that the peculiar structure imposed by the recent reorganization further puts parents at sea – since District Superintendents no longer spend any time supervising the schools in their own districts. This means parents have no place to go to when they have problems with their children’s schools. I also discussed out how the recent DOE parent survey was designed specifically to minimize parental concerns with both class size and testing, and that even when smaller classes came out as the top priority of parents, the DOE still tried to manipulate the statistics by making it look otherwise – showing their utter disrespect for our views.

Susan Shiroma, the new president of the Citywide Council on High Schools, complained that with the recent elimination of the regions, there were no longer any HS Presidents Councils in existence – rendering the job of the CCHS to gather input from HS parent leaders throughout the city almost impossible.

Sadly, as mentioned above, there were no stories in any of the media about these hearings. For more coverage, check out the InsideSchools blog entries for Sept. 20.

Council Member Fidler Threatens Lawsuit Over School Cell Phone Ban

Today's City Council hearings on parent engagement went for many hours. One early development was the angry back and forth between council members and DOE over the cell phone ban. Council member Lew Fidler of Brooklyn finished one exchange by telling Deputy Mayor Walcott "We'll see you in court".

While the council has recently passed a law protecting the rights of students to carry phones to and from schools, they have previously not openly expressed willingness to fight the battle in court. That heavy lifting has been done by public school parents represented by Attorney Normal Siegel and law firm Morgan Lewis. Fidler's comment may signal that the Council will now step up to defend both its own legislative prerogative and the rights of families.

Earlier, Martine Guerrier, who heads the Office of Family Engagement and Advocacy (OFEA) and Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott had testy exchanges with Council member Peter Vallone. Vallone was frustrated that Guerrier endorsed the mayor's position on cell phones rather than advocate for the position even she admitted was held by an overwhelmingly majority of parents.

Spin City: Bloomberg Disses NYC Public School Parents Yet Again

Last year, Mayor Bloomberg dismissed parents’ concerns over the cell phone ban by claiming that his office had only received about 500 calls on the issue and that they were probably the same person calling 500 times.

Just today, after saying he would ignore the City Council's override of his veto of their legislation on cell phones, he again trivialized our concerns by suggesting that parents only want to discuss with their kids whether to have fish or beef for dinner. Never has a NYC Mayor publicly treated his own constituents with such haughty condescension. It is the mark of a man who has never been a public school parent or educator and who obviously believes he is smarter than the rest of us. In his mind, there’s simply nothing to discuss.

Last week’s announcements from the DOE of their much-touted surveys provided the Mayor with an opportunity once again to spin the results, revealing the same dismissive attitude toward NYC public school parents. As the New York Times quoted the Mayor, “When somebody stands up and says, ‘I speak for all parents and we want smaller class sizes,’ that’s just not true.” Yet the Mayor conveniently ignored the fact that it was the number one choice of parents in his own survey! Given the administration's previous unwillingness to incorporate the changes requested by members of the focus groups created for the survey’s preparation, it's hardly surprising that the results are now being interpreted to show nothing but support for their favored policies.

Let’s take a closer look, leaving aside for the moment the statistical truism that any survey in which respondents self-select their participation (by mailing back their response in this instance) is not random and is automatically invalid as representative of the full population of (in this instance) public school parents.

• The press release from the Mayor’s office claimed that 45% of parents chose the non-existent category “More or Better Programs” as their highest improvement priority, compared to “just” 24% who cited “Smaller Class Size.” At the press conference, the Mayor himself said that parents preferred “more enrichment” two to one or smaller classes – a claim he repeated the next day on his radio show.

As pointed out in a previous entry, while the press release was highly misleading, the Mayor’s statement was flat out wrong. More enrichment came out second (at 19%) to smaller class size (at 24%).

• The Mayor’s continued insistence that parents do not consider class size as an important issue appears to be contradicted by his own survey’s results. A review of the results for all 194 schools in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (all that I have been able to analyze so far) showed that in a whopping 87 of them (45%) , parents identified smaller class size as their #1 most desired improvement. (See this excel file.) Smaller class size came out as the top preference for parents in each of these districts, although it tied for number one with enrichment in District 4. The percentages of schools where parents chose class size as their number one concern ranged from 55% of those in District 1, 50% in District 3, 42% in District 2, and 39% in District 4.

• The District 2 results were skewed somewhat since the list of schools in that district consists of many small alternative high schools with relatively low class sizes. Still, parents at most of the district’s large high schools, ranging from the highly selective Stuyvesant to lower-performing high schools like Washington Irving, Murray Bergtraum, and Norman Thomas, chose smaller classes as the improvement they would most like to see in their children’s schools.

Similarly, across all four districts, parents in 24 of 39 schools (61.5%) with enrollments of over 700 selected smaller class size as their highest priority improvement. In the 18 schools in those four districts with enrollments over 1,000, parents in 15 of them (83.3%) indicated smaller class size as their top choice. Despite the Mayor’s assertions to the contrary, there is clearly a sizable parent constituency that sees class size as the biggest problem in our schools that needs addressing.

• Mayor Bloomberg has publicly made the patently absurd claim that parents want more time spent on test preparation as compared to less time by a factor of 10 to 1, as if thousands of parents want less test preparation (or could conceive of “less preparation” as an “improvement”) in the era of high stakes testing he himself has promoted. First, this was not the stated preferences of parents overall. Rather, these numbers were taken out of context, representing the small percentage of parents who chose these two categories out of the same list of ten preferences offered in the survey, including smaller classes and many other compelling needs for our schools. That is, only 10% and 1% of the 26% parents who responded to the survey chose these answers– meaning 2.6% vs. .26% of parents overall.
  

Few high school parents would argue against more test preparation for State Regents exams which determine whether a student will graduate from high school. Indeed, given the fact that this administration has decided to base all promotion decisions on test scores, it is understandable that many parents would want their children as prepared as possible – in fear that they would be held back.

• In his public statements, the Mayor intentionally conflated a survey item labeled as “More Time for State Test Preparation” into massive parental approval (or lack of disapproval) for all testing. From the New York Times:

The mayor said the statistics discredited the idea that there was widespread discontent with testing and test preparation. “It’s a tiny, trivial number of people who scream the loudest who get the press, but it can send you totally in the wrong direction,” he said.

Nowhere were parents given the option of responding whether they believed that their children were being tested too much (not to mention all the new tests coming this year to be fed into ARIS) or that too much emphasis overall was being placed on tests. Preparation for State tests has zero relationship to the educationally stifling testing regime Chancellor Klein is planning to implement in NYC public schools, and this survey cannot in any way be construed to constitute parental support for it.

Back in the late 1990’s, ABC ran the Michael J. Fox comedy series “Spin City” about the NYC Mayor’s office. Who could have known that the show’s title would so perfectly prefigure this administration?

--- by Steve Koss

Bloomberg gets it wrong -- repeatedly -- about the survey's results on class size

On Thursday, the Mayor and Chancellor held a press conference to release the results of the teacher, student and parent surveys -- posted here. Almost immediately, they misrepresented what the surveys actually said -- by repeatedly claiming that class size did not come out as the top priority of parents, when it did.

A little background: I was one of the participants in the parent focus groups that were organized by DOE and KPMG to help develop the survey. Our focus group as well as every other said that large classes, as well as an overemphasis on testing, were top concerns of parents and should receive their own questions on the survey. (We knew about the results of the other groups because they showed them to us.) Yet when we were given a draft of the survey, it didn’t have a single question that mentioned class size or testing on it. We protested vociferously, and DOE offered a compromise– that they would include class size and test prep as one of a list of 10 possible priorities in a catch-all question at the end of the survey.

We didn’t think this was sufficient – since it seemed purposely designed to minimize these problems and ensure that these issues would get as low a preference as possible We continued to argue that each deserved its own questions – especially given all the other repetitive and apparently purposeless questions that the survey contained. Yet they went ahead anyway, we asked parents to consider boycotting the survey, and we subsequently undertook our own independent parent survey, whose results will be released soon.

So what happened? Despite the attempts by DOE to minimize this issue, smaller classes still came out as the top priority of parents at 24% -- which is quite substantial, considering they were forced to choose among many other compelling options. Here are the responses to the question in full:

Question 13: Which of the following improvements would you most like your school to make?

Smaller class size: 24%

More or better enrichment programs: 19%

More hands-on learning: 13%

Better communication w/ parents: 10%

More preparation for state tests: 10%

More challenging courses: 8%

More teacher training: 6%

More of better arts programs 5%

More effective school leadership: 5%

Less preparation for state tests: 1%

Now ignoring the question of why parents should have to choose among these various options (wouldn't smaller classes make hands-on learning and better communication with parents more possible? Don't our kids need both enrichment and small class sizes?), it is clear that despite the best efforts of DOE, parents spoke resoundingly clear -- that reducing class size is an important goal that should be pursued.

So what did the administration do? Rather than accept the reality of their own data, they put together a press release that attempted to obscure the results.

In a rather clumsy attempt to minimize class size concerns, the Mayor's Press Release contrasted the 24% of parents who selected smaller classes as their highest priority with “45% of parents who said creating more or better programs should be their school’s top priority “ They omitted the critical fact that they had to lump four different responses to get to this latter figure (more enrichment, hands-on learning, challenging courses, and arts programs.)

At the press conference the Mayor went further, and actually said: “By a big majority, two to one, parents would rather have you spend more money on enriching the programs rather than reducing class size.”

Perhaps he was confusing the new, rather inchoate category that DOE had devised -- “more or better programs” with enrichment. As you can see above, “more or better enrichment programs” actually came out second to class size at 19%, rather than two to one ahead of it.

During the press conference he also denigrated groups who advocate for smaller classes, saying that the results show that “When somebody stands up and says, “‘I speak for all parents and we want smaller class sizes,’ that’s just not true.”

As I was quoted in the Times , "It’s a transparent attempt to minimize the importance of an issue that is staring everybody in the face as the top priority of parents.”

Thanks to keen reporting, the NY Post noted the Mayor's error in claiming that parents preferred more enrichment over smaller classes, and the NY Times noted the deceptive comparison between class size and "more or better programs." See also the NY1 story.

If the Mayor's misstatement was an inadvertent mistake, you would think he would have figured it out after all these news stories. But you would be wrong.

On Friday, he went on his weekly radio show and did it all over again. Here is an excerpt:

Gambling: What did you learn? What was the one surprising thing that you learned from this?

Mayor: People wanted, by a factor of 2 to 1, double the number of people wanted more money spent on enriching programs as opposed to class size. Class size is something we want to work on. We are bringing it down, we're building more classrooms, you've got the biggest construction budget ever seen and all that sort of stuff. And we really are. We're hiring more teachers all the time. So we're going in that direction. But class size as compared to better teachers say, the science shows, are really important, and parents seem to think that.

He added some other rather interesting comments:

"You know everybody's got bitches, and of course that's what the papers focus on. But there are an awful lot of people very satisfied."

And: "The real world is full of tests. Every day your employer tests you all the time!... People who say too many tests, I don't know what they're thinking."

He also reiterated that despite the City Council override of his veto of the cell phone bill, he would continue to confiscate any cell phones that students brought to school.

What can you say? For a guy who claims to worship data, Bloomberg appears to have little interest in getting it right when it comes to how parents feel about the importance of class size.

Middle Schools Initiative & Cell Phone Ban: Discussions at Panel for Educational Policy Meeting

The Panel for Educational Policy meets monthly to review DOE policies and approve budgets. As the appointee of Borough President Scott Stringer, I represent Manhattan on the Panel. The DOE doesn't release minutes or transcripts of the proceedings so I'll be relating the important items for all interested. See also InsideSchools for coverage.

Middle School Initiative

The DOE presented their initiative to adopt recommendations of the City Council's Middle School Task Force. NYU education professor Pedro Noguera did an excellent job of pulling a strong report out of a task force filled with diverse views. It's a shame the mayor and chancellor couldn't give it more than half-hearted support. The NY Times coverage reflected the timid response:

"But the mayor shied away from adopting the most far-ranging changes recommended in the reports, like significantly reducing class sizes, creating a special middle school academy to train teachers about early adolescence, and removing police officers from city schools to create a more welcoming atmosphere."

I pointed out how the middle school situated inside DOE headquarters, the Ross Global Academy charter school, has capped class size at 20 students and asked if the more modest class size reduction recommendations in the report (25 students per class) would be adopted. The answer was no. Since the report offers smaller classes as a way to attract experienced teachers to high-needs schools, I then asked what measures would be taken to attract and retain teachers. The DOE plan is to expand the lead teacher program and offer professional development.

We often hear the mayor speak on the nature of leadership: "Lead from the front" etc. Middle school reform is an area where we could use some of that leadership. Council Speaker Chris Quinn and the people behind report are looking at the situation optimistically - that the initial DOE position is only a start and more recommendations will be embraced. Let's hope their optimism is warranted

School Safety

Elayna Konstan, the CEO of the Office of School and Youth Development said our schools are getting safer. The next day the State Education Department said schools are getting more dangerous. You can find statistics for your school on the SED web site. I asked if the Middle School Task Force Report recommendations on school safety would be implemented, specifically, would educators be given more control over school safety officers and police in the schools. Konstan was not familiar with the recommendations and pointed to their efforts in professional development and sharing of best practices.

Cell Phone Ban

The City Council has passed a bill allowing students to carry phones to and from school. While the mayor has vetoed it, the Council has said they will override the veto and pass the bill into law. I asked CEO Konstan if the administration would work with the Council to accommodate the rights of students or would there be more litigation. The response was more tough talk: "We'll wait for the litigation." The chancellor referred me to the mayor's veto message.

What's for dinner? Bloomberg's comments re cell phones

As reported below, yesterday the Mayor vetoed the legislation that would grant students the right to carry their cell phones to and from schools -- and would obligate DOE to set up a process to make this possible.

The Council passed the original bill 46-2 and is expected to override his veto easily, though the administration has already signaled it doesn't intend to comply with the law in any case -- which sets up a legal battle as to whether the Council has the authority to ensure this right for students.

Today on his weekly radio show, Bloomberg once again trivialized parents' concerns about what would happen in emergencies such as another 9/11, when several downtown schools were evacuated and it was impossible for them to locate their children for many hours, and also about unsafe situations that occur regularly when students are traveling to and from school.

Instead, the Mayor said that parents just want to tell their children what’s for dinner:

”If your question is do you want to have fish or chicken for dinner tonight, that’s not something we should pull your kid out. If it’s an emergency, call the school. If it’s not an emergency, it has to wait. There’s nothing more important for our children than getting them the education they’re going to need to survive and you can’t have both.” (You can listen to the full radio show here.)

Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is taking a rare step in openly defying the Mayor, released a statement, which said in part:

“We believe our legislation puts the onus on the DOE to provide that a student who arrives at school with a cell phone in the morning should have that phone for use when traveling home at the end of the day.”

Bloomberg Vetoes Bill Allowing Cell Phones Before and After School

The mayor has vetoed the City Council's bill to allow public school children to carry phones to and from school. It's a strange action given that the bill says nothing about what happens inside the school. Apparently, the mayor feels the need to come between parents and children and interfere in this family decision.

Here is what the bill says:

b. Any parent or guardian of any student may provide such student with a cellular telephone for any lawful use en route to and from school. No person shall interfere with the provision of such telephone to, or the use of such telephone by, such student.

c. Any person who is aggrieved by interference prohibited by subdivision b of this section shall be entitled to seek equitable relief in any court of competent jurisdiction.

d. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or limit the right of any school or law enforcement official to enforce regulations regarding the use of cellular telephones.

For the full text click here.

The Council approved the bill 46-2 and is expected to override the mayor's veto. Families will then have the law on their side.

InsideSchools has good coverage of the story including press accounts.

UPDATE: The council overrode the mayor's veto to pass this bill into law.

Police Raid Middle School To Enforce Bloomberg Cell Phone Prohibition

In Thursday's raid of Booker T. Washington Junior High School, police captured 400+ cell phones. See the NY1 stories here and here and the NY Times blog, Empire Zone. Parents were outraged at the tactics employed. Here is one account from the NY1 story:

"I saw a long line of students over here; I saw a number of police officers herding the children over there; and then they had a rope set to steer traffic so they were going up the stairs single file,” said parent Mark Stolar.

While the random scanning raids, carried out by a special branch of the NYPD, have been continuous in the public schools since the mayor implemented his ban, most don't get the type of coverage this one did. Earlier this year we reprinted a NY Civil Liberties Union account of strong arm tactics employed in a Bronx school.

The rough justice meted out to our children under the mayor's orders contrasts sharply with how the issue is addressed in the types of private schools the mayor's own children attended. A story in the NY Sun about smart phone use in Manhattan private schools included this account:

With his new BlackBerry, a junior at the Dalton School on the Upper East Side, Matthew Ressler, said he plans to keep track of his homework assignments, exam dates, basketball practices, and volunteer activities. "I think it will keep me better organized, and I won't have as many missed appointments," Matthew, 17, said of the device, a recent birthday gift from his mother. "It's really like you're organizing a professional career."

Click here for the full article, including the latest on what models are most popular and how one school supports downloads of the school calendar especially formatted for personal digital assistants.

Our demands are a bit more modest. All public school parent want is for our children to use their phones before and after school -- on their long commutes to/from school, activities and work. Is it so important for the mayor and chancellor to deny families this freedom? The reality is that the vast wealth of the men who control the public school system blinds them to the needs of ordinary people.

more on the cell phone decision: a dissent by Justice Goodman?

In today's Gotham Gazette there's a column by Emily Jane Goodman, a New York State Supreme Court Judge, about the recent decision by Justice Lewis Bart Stone that upheld the Mayor's cell phone ban. What’s startling is how openly critical her tone is. The column features a lengthy and very sympathetic description of the parents' plight in trying to secure the safety of their children.

She also points out, quite caustically, that Stone is only an “acting” justice, who “normally hears criminal cases.” His decision, she writes, "made numerous references to infractions, discipline, security, magnetometers and cited his own experiences" as well as “expositions on procedural technicalities and personal philosophy along with a section labeled, "What is a cell phone?"

Two additional points:

1- Stone is the same judge who ruled against the UFT and our class size coalition that there could be no citywide referendum on class size. He went to great lengths to argue that the state did not mean to give the city enhanced powers over education when Mayoral control was established – which is why city voters could not have a voice on this issue, an argument which appeared to fly in the face of legislative intent.

In the cell phone case, again, he came out strongly in favor of upholding DOE’s prerogatives to ignore parents and unilaterally make decisions as regards our kids. He also rejected an amicus brief from the UFT, which supported the parents' position, though he accepted an affidavit from Randi Weingarten. As described in the column, he called those who submitted such briefs really “enemies” rather than “friends" of the court, and complained that the obligation to read them was overly burdensome . A Pataki appointee, Justice Stone has also told people his idol is Judge Scalia of the Supreme Court.

2- An interesting sidelight issue omitted from the column is that Stone claimed in his decision that the cell phone policy as administered by DOE was flexible enough to allow discretion on the part of principals to allow students to carry cell phones if there was good reason – if, for example, few pay phones were available. Yet this view seems to misunderstand the blanket and absolute prohibition that exists. When Chancellor Klein was asked about this very matter at the last CPAC meeting, to clarify what the actual policy was and whether the Judge got it right, he mentioned something about not commenting on litigation and glossed over the question hurriedly.

DOE WINS CASE, WIDENS BAN

May 8, 2007 (GBN News): Emboldened by yesterday’s court ruling upholding the NY City Department of Education ban on cell phones, the DOE today expanded the ban to include virtually all electronic and mechanical devices. A DOE spokesperson told GBN News that while the ban covers devices of any kind, the main target of the new ban is wrist watches, which the DOE considers “disruptive” and “a safety issue”.

According to a statement issued by the DOE, students will be banned, effective immediately, from using, possessing or looking at watches while on school property. The statement details the rationale for this ban, and points out that the judge’s ruling in the cell phone case clearly sets a precedent for permitting this new regulation. The reasons put forth in the DOE statement are:

-Watches are “disruptive to the learning environment”. Students are distracted in class by looking at their watches and hearing watch alarms going off.
-Watches can be used to enable gang activity and other crimes. “Long before there were cell phones”, the statement says, “gangs and other criminals ‘synchronized watches’ to coordinate their criminal activity.”
-Watches may soon feature new and dangerous technologies such as voice and text communication capabilities. The statement noted that the judge’s ruling mentioned evolving technology as one justification for the ban. Moreover, it went on to point out that “Even an old Dick Tracy wrist watch can be used for cheating and other such nefarious purposes”.
-Novelty watches such as the ones displaying phases of the moon could also present a discipline problem by “reminding the wearer when the moon is full, thus encouraging bizarre and uncontrolled behavior.”

The DOE statement also reiterated that there are no exceptions to the ban on all electronic and mechanical devices, save for students’ documented medical needs. Hearing aids, for example, which the DOE says often disrupt classes by emitting annoying, high pitched sounds, will require a doctor’s certification. The certification must be renewed weekly since “sometimes people’s hearing improves.”

In response to immediate criticism by parent groups who said students' inability to carry watches for the trip to and from school could lead to excessive lateness to school and after school jobs, Schools Chancellor Joel Klein defended the ban. The Chancellor noted that, as the judge put it, there is a “rational basis” for the ban given the schools’ disciplinary and safety interests. As for the possibility of an appeal or an additional lawsuit, the Chancellor said simply, “Bring it on!”

cell phone ban prevails in court

Today, Judge Lewis Stone issued a negative decision in the cell phone case. NYC parents had sued the Department of Education so that their children could carry cell phones to school, to ensure their safety and to communicate with them before and after school. An appeal is likely.

Among the arguments made by the plaintiffs' attorneys, including civil rights advocate Norman Siegel and the law firm of Morgan Lewis, was that DOE's extreme and blanket ban violated the constitutional right of parents to "make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children," under the 14th amendment.

Yet the Judge argued rather weakly that when the 14th amendment was written in 1868, there were no cell phones, so no such fundamental right could exist.

The Judge also claimed that principals still retained the authority at their discretion to allow students to carry cell phones. This appears to be a misinterpretation of the current situation, in which Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have insisted on a complete and utter ban, with only very limited exceptions in the case of health.

The decision is here; see also this article from the NY Sun. Here is an excerpt from a statement by the plaintiff's attorneys:

Justice Stone failed to address the petitioners' argument that the cell phone ban exceeded the DOE's authority to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations for the general control and discipline of the schools.

The parent petitioners and their attorneys are disappointed with and disagree with Justice Stone's decision, remain committed to the reversal of the ban, and are strongly considering all possible grounds for an appeal.

In the meantime, it should be noted that Justice Stone suggests in his decision that the cell phone ban permits each school's principal to individually address the issue of students' possession of cell phones at their schools. In a section entitled "Special Circumstances," Justice Stone notes that principals may generally authorize students to carry their phones if certain factors exist, for example, if there are locations where the phones would not be disruptive, if the students are willing to abide by a rule against the use of the phone in school, or if there is a lack of availability of pay phones or commercial lockers for students to deposit their phones during school hours near a particular school. Individual parents and parent groups should address such authorization directly with their school principals.

Students Attempt to Defy Random Scanning

Many parents who oppose Mayor Bloomberg's cell phone ban probably wonder what would happen if their kids tried to defy the NYPD's random scanning patrols. Karim Lopez is an after-school coordinator at a South Bronx high school. Here is an account of events at his school last week, including his attempt to bring in observers from the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU).

And from the NYCLU press release issued today:

Students from a South Bronx high school who refused to walk through metal detectors to enter their school building were intimidated and threatened into complying with the scanning procedures last Wednesday, March 21^st.

When one student refused scanning he was taken to the side, surrounded by up to five NYPD School Safety Agents (SSAs), and threatened with not being able to join his classmates. Faced with this intimidation, the student finally went along with the procedures. Another pair of teenaged boys who refused scanning was brought into a side room and questioned, at times without any adult present, about who had put them up to it. They were threatened with a week’s suspension if they did not agree to the search. For fear of jeopardizing their college careers, the students finally gave in. They were allowed to go to their classes two hours after arriving at the school.

There will be press conference Thursday at 4:30 in front of Tweed Courthouse (DoE). Participating with the NYCLU will be Social Action Youth, Uptown Youth for Peace and Justice, Sistas and Brothas United, Friends of Brook Park, For A Better Bronx and Sistas on the Rise.

You Ask, We Get the Answers: More Info on “Children First” Game

March 15, 2007 (GBN News): Since we broke the story, GBN News has been inundated with inquiries about the prospective new Parker Brothers game, “Children First: A Game of Irony”, based on the NY City school system. (See previous GBN News article, “A New Game in Town”, March 10). The game has been shrouded in more secrecy than a DOE planning meeting, but one of our intrepid reporters has somehow been able to get hold of cards and a board from a prototype of the game. The game apparently comes with a warning informing users that the entire game is subject to reorganization and may become obsolete shortly after you buy it. However, owners of the computer version can download updates for what is termed a “nominal cost overrun”.

Following are a few examples of cards and board spaces from the game (players must amass “test points” to win):

• The school you are principal of scores in the bottom 10% of your district. Lose 100 test points and your job

• The school you are principal of scores in the top 10% of the district. Gain 100 test points but lose your job on the next turn for failure to meet higher expectations

• You must choose a “Learning Support Organization”. Whichever one you choose, lose 250 test points

• Go To Rubber Room. Go directly to Rubber Room. If you pass Go collect $200 but lose an indefinite number of turns

• Your 5 year old is given a Metro Card instead of a school bus. Lose one turn while Child Protective Service investigates you for endangering your child

• Your school bus route is cancelled: You cannot get to school, lose 100 test points

• You score “below standards” on your standardized tests. Lose 100 test points and a turn while you repeat the grade. Teacher and principal lose 200 points each for “leaving you behind”

• Cell phone confiscated. You cannot contact your parents when your train breaks down. Lose two turns while you wander the streets trying to find your way home

• Your class has 40 students. Teacher confuses you with the student in the next seat. Lose 50 test points

• ARIS computer is down. Each player loses a turn

• “Get Out of Jail Free”: If you are a Tweed administrator you also receive 500 bonus points and a job offer at a high priced consulting firm with a lucrative DOE no-bid contract

• “Take a ride on the Reading First Railroad”. Lose a turn, the train already left

• Free Parking: Pay $250 fine for failure to dig your car out of the ice by the school. You didn’t think parking would really be free, did you?

• “Just Visiting”: The Mayor skips this space. He doesn’t do visits; he’s in Florida

• Advance token to the nearest “failing school”. If unowned, you can buy it from the DOE and turn it into a charter school.

A version of the game will also be available based on the St. Louis school district. The St. Louis version is similar to the New York game but if you land on the space labeled “Alvarez and Marsal”, you go bankrupt and have to start all over again.

Public School Parents Go To Albany

Today is the annual CPAC Lobbying Day. CPAC is the Chancellor's Parent Advisory Council, whose members are elected by PTA presidents in each school district. Unlike the various Mayoral appointees who represent the Department of Education in dealings with parents, CPAC is elected by parents to represent our interests.

Buses full of CPAC members and parent volunteers left for Albany early this morning. They will see their State Senators and State Assemblymembers, the people who ultimately are responsible for NYC public schools, who control the budget and who will decide, in 2009, whether to renew the experiment in mayoral control of schools.

The CPAC agenda is available online. A page on each position is available from the files section of the CPAC group site. Parents should take a few minutes to review these positions, all of which are opposed by Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Klein.

CPAC has prepared the following summary of their positions:

"On Parent Empowerment: We support the full restoration of Community School Districts, and District Superintendents with the authority to implement policy, address community needs, and respond to parental complaints. All schools, including those in the empowerment and contractor networks, should remain within the district structure. Community District Education Council’s (CDEC’s) need to be strengthened as conduits for public input into the capital plan, zoning, and education policy. We support training and oversight to guarantee functioning Parent Associations (PA’s) and School Leadership Teams (SLT’s) in all schools.

On Governance: We urge the Legislature to hold hearings on the negative effects of unchecked unilateral Mayoral control, and to pass legislation allowing the NYC City Council, with input from parents and other stakeholders, to provide the necessary checks and balances on Department of Education (DoE) policy.

On Class Size Reduction: We endorse the Nolan/Lancman bill that would require that a minimum of 25% of the additional state funds our schools receive be invested in reducing class size in all grades, to levels that currently exist in the rest of the state. In the CFE case, the Court of Appeals found that classes were too large in our schools to provide our children with their constitutional right to an adequate education, and that their excessive class sizes led directly to low achievement and high dropout rates. It is time to make smaller classes a reality for NYC children.

On CFE and Accountability: We support the proposal to provide $5.4 billion in additional aid to NYC schools, and urge the Legislature to adopt the Nolan/Lancman bill, requiring that a minimum of 25% of these funds be invested in reducing class size in all grades. Robust accountability measures and public input must also be required, including City Council approval of the city’s CFE spending plan, in consultation with CPAC and other parent groups, as well as regular audits of the spending of these funds by the State Comptroller’s office.

On High-Stakes Testing: We urge the State to develop an effective, valid and reliable assessment system to evaluate students’ progress, based on multiple measures, and to ban the use of any set of tests contrary to the recommendations of the American Educational Research and the National Board on Educational Testing. No standardized test or set of tests should be used as the sole or primary criterion to determine whether a student is promoted, retained, admitted to or allowed to graduate from school.

On English Language Learners (ELLs): We urge the State to monitor schools to ensure that ELL students receive the necessary instructional services and hold schools accountable for failing to meet the needs of these students. The amount and scope of Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) aid should be expanded, to provide key components of an Immigrant/ELL Success Agenda.

On Charter Schools: We oppose lifting the cap on charter schools in NYC, because this would divert critical resources, attention, and classroom space from our traditional public schools. Also, charter schools do not enroll their fair share of ELL and special education students. Allowing more charter schools to be formed would encourage the creation of two separate and unequal school systems. Finally, we vehemently oppose any legislation that would allow the Chancellor to authorize charter schools with no appeal or judicial review.

On Cell Phone Ban: We urge the State legislature to overturn the (DOE) cell phone ban, which violates parents' rights to ensure their children's safety."