Showing posts with label principals survey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label principals survey. Show all posts

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Rally to demand A Better Capital Plan

Thanks so much to all of you who were able to attend our rally on school overcrowding on Friday morning.

We filled the steps of City Hall, nearly 300 impassioned parents, advocates, children and elected officials.

Among those who spoke included Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion, Cathy Nolan of Queens, chair of the Assembly Education Committee, Assembly member Deborah Glick, Council Members Robert Jackson, chair of the City Council Education committee, Jessica Lappin, chair of the subcommittee on public siting, and David Yassky of Brooklyn. Rich Farkas, the VP of the UFT also spoke, as well as Manhattan BP Scott Stringer, who orchestrated the entire proceedings with his usual flair.

Special thanks to the 5th graders at PS 3 who brought wonderful signs, including, “Sardines have more room” and “Bloomberg: give kids more room to bloom!”


Gotham Schools has photos of the rally and I have uploaded more here.

It was a day of both highs and lows, since the Council hearings that followed featured the usual DOE spin. Deputy Mayor Walcott, Deputy Chancellor Grimm, Garth Harries, and Liz Sciabarra were out to convince skeptical Council members that everything was rosy.

They kept on droning about “pocket” overcrowding, as though this problem was limited to isolated neighborhoods – rather than the systemic crisis revealed by their own data – showing that more half of million students are in classes exceeding the targets in their class size reduction plan, and according to the DOE "Blue book", 38 percent of NYC students attend overcrowded schools Not to mention that according to our survey, half of all principals say that the capacity figures for their own schools are inaccurate, and understates the extent of overcrowding at their schools.

Council members repeatedly tried to get real answers – or at least get them to concede that a serious problem existed, but no such luck.

Deputy Mayor Walcott testified that because of past mismanagement, 20,000 seats out of 60,000 seats in the previous five year capital plan were never built. He omitted the fact that nearly half of the 63,000 seats in the current capital plan will probably not be completed when this plan concludes in June.

When Garth Harries, Chief Portfolio Officer, was asked when they would be able to reduce class size to 20 in grades K-3 in all elementary schools – more than 60% of whom are still in classes of 21 or more -- as the city originally promised would occur by June 2009, he responded that he was unable to say.

When Kathleen Grimm was asked when they would be able to eliminate trailers and TCUs, another goal they originally promised would occur by June, she replied that many principals like their trailers and didn’t want them removed. (!!) She also said that overcrowding at District 2 schools like Salk and Clinton middle schools were the result of their being too popular with parents– as though nearly every other middle school in D2 wasn’t severely overcrowded as well.
When Dennis Walcott was asked how many additional seats would be needed to meet the city’s goals in their state-mandated Contract for Excellence plan, (20 students per grade in K-3 and 23 in all other grades), he responded that this “depended on one’s mindset.”

When Walcott was asked about the results of our principal’s survey, which showed that 86% of NYC principals said that they were unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes, and that 50% reported that overcrowding made it unsafe for students or staff, he shrugged this off, and responded that of course, all principals would like to have more room.

It was a typical administration performance, full of obfuscation and excuses, an attempt to define the problem away or blame others rather than confront the problems directly or provide any real answers.

Following several hours of this, MBP Scott Stringer finally got a chance to testify, as did State Sen. Liz Krueger, both of whom gave strong statements about the need to build more schools and reform the planning process.

Other speakers included Prof. Emily Horowitz, who summarized the results of our principal’s survey, and Doug Israel of the Center for Arts Education, who spoke about the need for more art and music rooms. I had to leave at 2 PM before the hearings were completed so I don’t have a complete list, but I know that other parent leaders testified as well.

Meanwhile, please see the press release along with the ABC letter, with its impressive list of signers -- including prominent advocates and elected officials from the city, state, and federal levels.

Here is also an updated copy of our principal survey report, as well as the CSM testimony, complete with charts.

Don’t forget to send a fax to the Mayor, demanding a better capital plan; just go to the UFT website today!

Saturday, May 24, 2008

The results of our principal survey on school overcrowding

Last week, Prof. Emily Horowitz and I released the results of our principal survey on school overcrowding.

It's based on the responses of nearly 500 school leaders --over one third of all NYC public school principals. I thought I was unshockable -- but the results disturbed even me. As I said to the NY Post, in the richest city in the world, after three years of $4-5 billion surpluses in a row, our students are still learning in third world conditions. Every right-thinking New Yorker with a conscience should be ashamed.

Fifty-four percent say that the enrollment at their own school is not capped at a level to prevent overcrowding. Half say that overcrowding sometimes leads to unsafe conditions for students or staff; 43% observe that overcrowding makes it difficult for students and/or staff to get to class on time.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents believe that the official DOE utilization rate for their own schools is inaccurate and underestimates the actual amount of overcrowding; more than half (51%) of principals at schools officially reported as underutilized say that the rate is incorrect.

Eighty six percent believe that class sizes at their schools are too large to provide a quality education – and that what prevents them from reducing class size is primarily a lack of control over enrollment and space.

More than one fourth (26%) of all middle and high school principals say that overcrowding makes it difficult for their students to receive the credits and/or courses needed to graduate on time.

At 25% of schools, art, music or dance rooms have been lost to academic classrooms; 20% of computer rooms have been given up; 18% of science rooms; 14% of reading enrichment rooms, and 10% of libraries have been converted to classroom space -- and this process is still ongoing.

27% said that specific DOE policies had led to more overcrowding at their schools -- including the insistence at putting new charter schools and small schools in existing school buildings.

At 29% of schools, lunch starts at 10:30 AM or earlier; and at 16% of schools, students have no regular access to the school’s library.

18% of principals reported that their schools have classrooms with no windows. Many say that special education classes and services are given in inadequate spaces, including closets.

Principals also report ongoing battles with DOE over their schools’ capacity ratings, and many expressed resentment at being sent excessive numbers of students, particularly after they have tried to use available funding to reduce class size.

The thrust of the DOE's current ideology assumes that the educators at each school are primarily responsible for the success or failure of their students. Accordingly, the administration has devolved more responsibility and autonomy to principals to improve academic results, with the presumption that they have at their disposal the tools they need to succeed.

Yet as these principals say, they have no control over some of the most important factors determining the quality of their schools: the allocation of space and the number of students assigned to their schools. These remain entirely within the control of the DOE. In the view of an overwhelming majority of principals, the resulting overcrowding prevents them from reducing class size to appropriate levels and being able to provide critical programs

The full report is here.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

The truth behind DOE's high ratings in the principals' survey by Diane Ravitch

Last week, the NYC Department of Education released its survey of principals, showing that more than 70% were satisfied with the support that they receive from the DOE. This was good news for the Department, and they were able to wave these numbers as “proof” that the leaders in the field are satisfied.

As it happened , I was the keynote speaker on Saturday January 26 at the annual meeting of the New York City Elementary School Principals’ Association at the Brooklyn Marriott. Before I spoke, I had a candid conversation with some principals. I heard some of the usual complaints about how out of touch the DOE is, how outrageous is the flood of tests, how heedless the DOE is about the real needs of students and teachers, etc.

So naturally I asked why the principal survey showed such high levels of satisfaction with the DOE. Weren’t the responses anonymous?

I was told, by people who for obvious reasons I cannot name, that principals understand that there is no such thing as anonymity when corresponding by email with the DOE. Principals assume that anything sent to the DOE, even if they do not sign it personally, has the school’s ID. Given what they believe is the “vindictive” spirit of Tweed, most dared not take the risk of expressing negative views.

In the world of interoffice electronic communication, there is no such thing as a secret ballot. Or so they believe. And they were afraid to speak up.

---Diane Ravitch