Tonight's vote on charter expansion and co-locations; neither parent choice nor the free market at work

This evening the Panel for Educational Policy  -- or as it is sometimes called, the Panel of Eight [mayoral] Puppets -- will rubberstamp 23 new co-location proposals and two expansions, including many for charter schools that have not even been approved yet by the state.  
 

These proposals will uniformly disadvantage the children in the existing schools, cause even more overcrowding and larger classes, and push disabled students out of the spaces they need for special services.

Some of the examples have been described in newspaper accounts.  Here is how the severely disabled children in the Mickey Mantle School in PS 149 have already been affected by the co-location of Harlem Success Academy in their building, according to Juan Gonzalez of the Daily News:

Originally, these children had a “cafeteria, playground, library, and cluster rooms (for specialized activities).”  In 2006, when the charter school moved in, they lost their library and a bunch of classrooms.  The following year, according to a teacher,

“We lost our technology room, our music room, our art room and we had to start sharing the cafeteria, the gym and playground,” Manuell says.

Now she is “teaching theater at Mickey Mantle in a former office with no windows. A fellow teacher conducts four periods a week of gym in a regular classroom because so little time has been allotted in the main gym to the Mickey Mantle pupils”

Now DOE wants to give space to up to “375 middle-school pupils to Manuell’s school over the next several years. They will come from another Moskowitz school, Harlem Success 4.

As for the Mickey Mantle School, 20% of its enrollment will be cut and displaced elsewhere.  “Even with that reduction, officials concede the building may reach 130% of capacity.”

Of the 23 proposals to be voted on today, there are 21 co-location proposals and two expansions. Ten of the 23 co-location proposals will cause a building utilization rate of over 100% in the next few years, according to the DOE. 

As the DOE severely underestimates the amount of overcrowding in these buildings, one can assume that even more schools will lose their art rooms, libraries, science labs, and intervention spaces, and will suffer class size increases as a result. 

Some have speculated that the co-location of a District 75 school for disabled students contributed to an autistic student walking out of the building without supervision last week; this child is still missing. 
Yet none of these impacts are reflected in the DOE's Educational Impact statements required by law.

Thirty eight district public schools (excluding all the charters) are affected by these co-location proposals. Twenty two of the schools are majority or plurality Hispanic/Latino, fifteen are majority Black, and one is plurality Asian, I.S. 96 Seth Low.

Only one of the schools originally on the co-location list, I.S. 2 on Staten Island, is majority White. Coincidentally or not, this is the only co-location proposal rescinded last week by Chancellor Walcott.

Eight of the co-location proposals involve Success Academy Charter Schools and eight involve other charter schools.

There are other potential costs including substantial capital renovations. The co-location of Upper West Success elementary charter led to the DOE  creating an entirely new separate cafeteria for the school, which cost $500K and had to be matched by  funds provided to every other school in the building, totaling $3 Million in all.  Yet there was no mention of this expense in its EIS, nor is this potential cost mentioned in the EIS of tonight’s proposal to move another Success elementary charter into Murry Bergtraum High School, though one has to assume that the DOE will be asked to build a separate cafeteria for this school as well.

While the DOE claims they are only responding to parent choice, the Success Academy network spends millions on marketing and advertising to inflate their applications.  In 2009-2010, according to Juan Gonzalez, they spent “$1.6 million just for publicity and recruitment of new students… That means Moskowitz spent about $1,300 on marketing for every new enrollee.”

Even so, the classes at Upper West Success were under-enrolled after it moved into the Brandeis HS building in 2011. This is from Noah Gotbaum, parent leader and CEC member in District 3: 

…we estimate that Eva spent over a million dollars on recruitment/marketing for Upper West Success alone in 2010/2011 school year.  According to Eva, and to SUNY, her charter authorizer, this effort generated a wait list of 1400 kids, on top of 188 lottery "winners".  

Yet according to DOE records, in 2011/2012 Upper West Success was only able to fill 164 of its authorized 188 Kindergarten and 1st grade seats (an estimated marketing cost of some $6000 per enrollee).

Why did/does she need to spend all that money?  Because the "huge" demand and "enormous" waiting lists claimed by Success, and by Citizens of the World, and by the charter lobby are, for the most part, fictitious.  Either that, or the screening out and cream-skimming of applicants by Eva and other charters is so great that out of 1400 on the waitlist they were unable to find 20 kids THEY would be willing to accept.

We asked Success Charter how this could be and didn't receive an answer.  Then we asked the DOE, and they directed us to SUNY.  SUNY then directed us to Success Charter's Board of Directors.  No response. So CEC3 FOILed for information on the lottery/matriculation/enrollment process.  

That was 3 years ago. We are still waiting.  

Similarly, Democracy Prep Charter in Harlem was forced to send mailers to try to recruit applicants as far south as Lower Manhattan, Girls Prep charter offered cash rewards this year to individuals who recruited more students to the school, and it was recently revealed that Citizens of the World charter is so under-enrolled that it may be closed, though it originally claimed great demand.
 
Moreover, it is also clear from the abundance of comments at public hearings that the vast majority of parents oppose these proposals – and these parents’ choices are being ignored.  Just check any of the Public comment analyses on the DOE webpage.  In many of these summaries, every single parent who spoke opposed the co-location, as well as representatives of the Community Education Councils and elected officials.

But these proposals were put forward not by parents or members of the community, but engineered by former Deputy Chancellor Marc Sternberg, who on Oct. 4 left the DOE to work for the Walton Foundation.  The Walton Foundation bills itself as the largest private supporter of charter school start-ups in the country.

Here is a chart showing the amount of funding the Success charters have received since 2009, according to the Keystone State Coalition, totaling $4.64 million dollars.

Success Charter Network	$1,000,000.00	2012
Success Charter Network	$1,000,000.00	2011
Success Charter Network	$1,310,000.00	2010
Success Charter Network	$ 60,000.00	2009
Success Charter Network	$1,270,000.00	2009

The fact that Sternberg devoted his last few months to enable this chain to expand in alignment with the goals of his future employer is an obvious conflict of interest.

To sum up, the expansion of charters and the DOE's granting them free space in our public school buildings is neither parental choice nor a free market at work.  Instead, these plans reflect the overriding preferences of the Bloomberg administration and privatizers to maximize and facilitate the corporate takeover of our public schools – even when it severely damages the safety and quality of education of our students, including the highest needs children in the system.

Commissioner King says Class Size Matters is a "special interest" manipulating parents

Over the weekend, NY State Education Commissioner John King cancelled all future PTA-sponsored forums about the Common Core, because he claimed that these meetings have been "co-opted by special interests" whose goal is to "dominate" these meetings, and that "parents don't deserve to be manipulated and dominated." His entire statement is quoted here.

Today, a spokesperson from the NY State Education Department identified to reporters these "special interests" as NYSUT (the state's teacher union) and Class Size Matters.  I explained yesterday why it was absurd to say parents are being "manipulated" by  NYSUT, but I was absolutely flabbergasted to hear that King is claiming this about Class Size Matters as well.

I assume that he is referring to our efforts to inform parents around the state that their children's most personal information is being shared with inBloom Inc. and other vendors without their consent, and our advocacy to try to stop this from happening.  One question read from a card at the PTA forum in Poughkeepsie meeting on Thursday referred to these plans (see this video at about 41 minutes in.).

Yet the idea that parents' concerns about this data-sharing plan results from their being "manipulated" is so absurd it is difficult to even comprehend.  So far six out of nine states have pulled out of inBloom or put their plans on hold because of protests from privacy experts and parents in Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Delaware, and Massachusetts; did Class Size Matters manipulate all of them?

In Jefferson County Colorado, the only district participating in that state, the Superintendent announced that parents will be allowed to opt out of their children's data from being shared with inBloom. Last spring, the NY State Assembly  passed two bills to prevent this unregulated personal student data sharing without consent, and most of the candidates for NYC Mayor announced they opposed this as well.  Were all these people being "manipulated"? 

Commissioner King's claim is not only insulting to parents; it reveals how out of touch he is.  He seems unable to comprehend how parents' desire to protect their children's privacy is rational and to have the right to decide with whom their children's most sensitive information, including their names, addresses, test scores, disabilities and disciplinary records, is being shared is completely justified. NY State Allies for Public Education has called for King's resignation.  See the video below.

King's claim that parents are being "manipulated" by special interests; does he deserve to stay in office?

Commissioner King announced he was pulling out of already-scheduled PTA forums, after parents and teachers had freely vented their frustrations with the Common Core and testing during town hall meetings in Whitesboro and Poughkeepsie last week.  More on the blog about these events from yesterday’s blog here.

In the statement released to reporters yesterday, King claimed he was cancelling his participation in future PTA forums because parents were being dominated and manipulated by “special interests.” Though Dennis Tompkins, NYSED spokesman, refused to identify to reporters who was meant by this term, King was clearly referring to the teachers union. 

Here and below is the full video of the Poughkeepsie forum, revealing that parents became increasingly frustrated at having to wait one hour and 23 minutes before being allowed to speak, and were angered when the 30 minutes they had been promised were continually interrupted by King; and in the end, their time was cut short at 20 minutes. 

The video also includes revealing responses from King, showing how he answered questions read from cards about his insistence on sharing personal student data with inBloom (the first question that met with applause from the audience, at 41 minutes in) and why he won’t allow students to opt out of the state exams (at 1 hour 4 minutes in).

Here are stories from the Buffalo News (read the comments especially); and Poughkeepsie Journal, which quotes parents:

“I believe that Commissioner King is running away. He doesn’t want to be challenged by the parents or anybody else,” said Lisa DiStefano, 38, a mother of three from Pleasant Valley, who attended the meeting Thursday.

DiStefano said if parents no longer have a say in their children’s education, that the state Education Department is “acting as an authoritarian, telling us we don’t want to listen because you no longer have any rights.”

Anna Shah, 41, a parent in the Spackenkill district, said the PTA’s flier for the event advertised it as an opportunity to gather information, ask questions and share concerns with King and other education department representatives.

“Those of us who were at the meeting saw firsthand that Dr. King must have missed the memo,” she said via email. “The meeting ended abruptly after five speakers presented, leaving at least 75 who were denied the chance to speak.”

The Newsday article includes comments from a Long Island school board member:

Port Jefferson resident Ali Gordon, 41, a trustee on the Comsewogue Board of Education, criticized King, saying he was ducking a town hall she and "many, many others" planned to attend. 

"It's very disappointing to see the leader of our state Education Department essentially hide from parents and teachers who are so directly affected by the decisions that he makes and the rushed implementation of the Common Core in New York State," she said.

Here is the full statement from Commissioner John B. King, Jr.:

"I was looking forward to engaging in a dialogue with parents across the state.  I was eagerly anticipating answering questions from parents about the Common Core and other reforms we're moving ahead with in New York State.  Unfortunately, the forums sponsored by the New York State PTA have been co-opted by special interests whose stated goal is to "dominate" the questions and manipulate the forum.

"The disruptions caused by the special interests have deprived parents of the opportunity to listen, ask questions and offer comments.  Essentially, dialogue has been denied.

"In light of the clear intention of these special interest groups to continue to manipulate the forum, the PTA-sponsored events scheduled have been suspended.  My office will continue to work with PTA to find the appropriate opportunities to engage in a real, productive dialogue with parents about our students and their education.

"Parents don't deserve to be dominated and manipulated."

King’s insistence that parents are pawns of the union is not only utterly false – it is denigrates their intelligence and autonomy. 

The reality is that parents, researchers, early childhood experts, school board members, district administrators and principals have all criticized the Common Core standards, the way they have been implemented in New York state, the curriculum and modules NYSED has offered, the poor quality and the invalid scoring of the state exams, the huge expense and amount of time taking up in standardized testing, test prep and scoring, the stress this puts on students, the unreliable and damaging teacher evaluation system tied to test scores, and King’s determination to share the most private student data with vendors without parental consent – all issues that go far beyond the critique put forward by the teacher’s union, which has so far only argued for a moratorium on the consequences of these exams.  Indeed, it is he who is refusing to engage in a real dialogue on these issues.

What do you think?  Does King deserve to head the NY State Education Department, unless he acknowledges and addresses the legitimate concerns expressed by parents and community members from throughout the state?

Teachers: do you agree with Malcolm Gladwell that class sizes below 25 are TOO small?

On WNYC radio, Brian Lehrer is asking teachers to call in on Monday morning, and comment on Malcolm Gladwell's claim that classes shouldn't be too small  -- such as 25 students and below, since individual students are MORE likely to be able to disrupt the class and struggling students feel isolated at the bottom of the class.

You can tweet @brianlehrer, post on the comments page when the segment is on the air, or call 212-433-WNYC. 
 

The podcast/interview from last week with Gladwell is here; at 27 minutes in, he explains why he thinks classes can be too small:

“I got this idea from teachers, I spoke to countless teachers...I found it hard to find, particularly middle and high schools teachers, who thought that it was a good idea to have a class in the mid-teens….When a class gets too small it hurts the poorest students.”

I have never heard any teacher say this myself and don't know any research to back it up.  In any case, Lehrer doesn’t want to hear from me, but from teachers to express their views. 

Actually the research says the opposite: the larger the class, the more disruptions tend to occur. 

And there are MANY studies showing that poor, disadvantaged, and struggling students benefit the most from small classes, because they are able get more attention from their teachers, tend to be more engaged in a smaller class, and CANNOT hide at the back of the class. 

Though there may be class sizes so small that they inhibit debate and discussion, there is no research I know of that reveals what the cut point may be.  I was quoted in the WSJ last year that I don’t think schools should be organized with class sizes of one, because the social interaction and debate among students is important, and they do indeed learn from their peers. 

Yet elite private high schools such as Exeter have class sizes of eight to twelve, and Harvard limits its Freshman writing classes to ten students.  I would conjecture that average students, and especially poor and immigrant students like most of those who attend NYC public schools, could benefit from classes just as small.   

Here is an excerpt from the New Statesman review of Gladwell’s latest book, called David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, in which he makes the same claims:

One early story Gladwell tells is about classroom sizes. A large class is usually thought to be a “disadvantage” (the abstract equivalent of a “giant”) for pupils, and smaller class sizes are assumed to be better. Surveying studies, Gladwell observes that though really big classes are a problem, there is a happy medium, and smaller classes don’t necessarily lead to better outcomes. This, he explains, is because teachers don’t usually adjust their teaching style to smaller class sizes; instead, they just work less. So, the “disadvantage” of moderately big classes isn’t one after all. 

A bizarre coda to this story shows the weaselly potential of Gladwell’s method. Up the road from the state school where he has been talking to a nice teacher, there is a private school, which boasts that its average class size is 12. Oh dear, thinks Gladwell. “Why does a school like [this] do something that so plainly makes its students worse off?” The odd thing is that he simply doesn’t know whether the students there are worse off, because he doesn’t know whether the staff teach in a way that suits their small classes. If they do, then the students won’t be worse off at all. So does Gladwell talk to anyone at the school to find out? He does not. Perhaps he fears ruining the story.

Here is what one teacher wrote, after Gladwell made similar claims that class size didn't matter at a conference in Toronto:

Advice to Mr. Gladwell: stick to what you know. Teaching K-12 is not like speaking to a university lecture hall full of grown-ups. Teachers negotiate diverse levels of academic ability, facility in English, behavioural tendencies, and home-environment influences in classes of children from ages 4-18. In his book, Outliers, Mr. Gladwell states it takes 10,000 hours to be an expert in any field. I have my 10,000 hours in teaching K-12; he has about 10,000 to go.