Coming Soon: The "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" of Ed Reform?

Arguably the single most important spur to public acceptance and concern over global climate change as an issue came from Davis Guggenheim's 2006 documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth." With that video, global warming moved from being a topic of scientific conferences, technical journals, and environmental activists to being a household term familiar to parents and children alike.

What "An Inconvenient Truth" and Al Gore did for climate change, Guggenheim's "Waiting for Superman" and Bill Gates may soon be doing for American education reform. Judging from reports emanating from this year's Sundance Film Festival, a popular-media tidal wave is taking shape, and it could well make all previous efforts to sell the Bush/Spellings/Obama/Duncan education reforms look like ripples in a backyard wading pool.

Mr. Guggenheim has compiled a "definitive" explanatory documentary of America's educational ills (based, of course, on his certainty that the current system is broken). A short item by Brooks Barnes in the NY Times on Monday, February 1 described "Waiting for Superman" as "a searing indictment of public education in the United States." So who exactly is Guggenheim indicting? Here's part of one Sundance attendee's review (Matt Belloni, from the Hollywood Reporter):

"In fact, for all its focus on underprivileged, inner-city kids, sections of SUPERMAN feel like they could have been cut together by Bill O'Reilly. Slo-mo footage of union leader speeches opposing reform that could help problem schools. Hidden-cam video of a teacher reading newspapers and checking his watch as his class goofs around. New York educators being paid millions to not teach. A major subject of the film, reform-minded DC schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, runs into a crippling teachers-union road block in her effort to shift pay structures to reward good teachers."

Guggenheim has cherry-picked and packaged every hoary scare story from the last twenty-five years: the lazy and incompetent teacher, the reactionary and obstructionist union as represented by "villainess" Randi Weingarten (of whom one commentator notes that the movie "make[s] something of a foaming satanic beast"), the Democratic Party supported by those teacher unions, the lack of incentive rewards for "good" teachers, and not enough charter schools.

Sound familiar? Sound like a documentary, or an advocacy piece? Still not sure? Well then, go back to the top of this posting and check out the "Terminator"-like nuclear-bomb-blast scene surrounding the little blonde, white girl in the movie's advertising poster. Anyone but me reminded of LBJ's infamous, anti-Goldwater nuclear holocaust campaign ad, the one that was shown on TV exactly one time and pretty much decided the election?

And who are the stars of Guggenheim's film? None other than NYC's own Geoffrey Canada, supported by Michelle Rhee and KIPP founders David Levin and Mike Feinberg, backed by a song written and performed just for this movie by John Legend.

So where is the Superman who can save our little blond children from these incompetent teachers and their devil's-spawn unions? Where's Clark Kent when we need him? Never fear, that bespectacled, geeky guy is here, only this Superman's street-clothes identity is Bill Gates. Numerous reports from Sundance indicate that billion-dollar Bill has shown more than a passing interest in this film. In fact, he was a highly visible participant at the Sundance Festival's "Waiting for Superman" screening, actually sharing the stage at the Q&A afterward with Guggenheim and Canada. He even twittered gushingly from the screening that there was "not a dry eye in the house." (Sniff, sniff).

Remarkably, in that Q&A following the movie's premier, director Guggenheim chose to let Mr. Gates speak for him. "Guggenheim was happy to defer questions to Gates, even admitting, 'I'm so glad Bill is here!'" When the director cedes his place to a third party with no involvement in the movie's creation, one has to assume said director is not terribly comfortable with his knowledge level on the subject matter, and/or that there's another agenda. Not hard to guess what that would be.

Distribution rights to "Waiting for Superman" were sold to Paramount Vanguard before the movie was even shown at Sundance. Then again, it was Paramount who distributed Guggenheim's "An Inconvenient Truth" to the tune of $50 million in receipts. They must be seeing deja vu all over again.

A few years from now, we may look back at "Waiting for Superman" as the real beginning of the end for American public education. Davis Guggenheim's documentary could become the key propaganda piece that persuades a dull-witted, gullible, and uninformed American public that only Superman Gates, Lois Lane Rhee, and Jimmy Olsen Canada can save their children from the locust-like hordes of brainy, ultra-educated, young Chinese men and women who are just chomping at the bit to step ashore and eat their lunches. If Mr. Gates and his steamrolling billions have anything to say about it, you can bet we'll be seeing and hearing a lot more about "Waiting for Superman" in the coming months.

Just in case you think this is a one-shot deal, brace yourself for another one, due on May 7. It's a film titled, "The Lottery." Yeah, you guessed it -- another "documentary," this one about the charter school lottery process in Harlem, starring Geoffrey Canada, Eva Moskowitz (Harlem Success Academy), Dacia Toll (Achievement First), and Joel Klein. The movie's position? How about this excerpt from a review from the CNBC website:

"The Lottery exposes the backwards politics and nefarious agendas of politicians and special interest groups who stand in the way of improving a failing public school system."

I never realized that I'm a backwards special interest group with a nefarious agenda. But hey, at least I'll be able to have some fun at the movies!! Looks like 2010 is going to be a long, long year.

The "New Math" of Closing Large High Schools?

Earlier this week, I picked up a copy of the latest West Side Spirit newspaper to read their cover story, "McCourt High School Recruiting Students." The whole enterprise -- a planned, four-year high schoolwith an anticipated enrollment of 432 (108 per grade level) to begin operation in September 2010 -- is of course a heartwarming memorial to teacher/author Frank McCourt. However, as I read the article, I saw this:

"In addition to being evaluated on grades and attendance, students interested in enrolling must take part in an interview, which screens for writing ability and collaborative skills. Part of the interview will include an on-demand writing test and a group task to gauge students' interest in collaboration."

Given the less-than-stellar history of Brandeis High School, which is being closed to make way for McCourt and at least three other schools, this screening process struck me as not likely to select many students comparable to those who have been attending Brandeis in recent years (a population that in 2005-06 was 24.5% ELL and 11.0% Special Education). To the contrary, it seem more suited to Upper West Siders looking for a local, "top tier" high school on the order of Lab School, Millennium, SOF, or Eleanor Roosevelt.

The West Side Spirit included the names of three other new schools already in their first year of operation in the W. 84th Street building even as the old Brandeis H.S. phases out. There's the Global Learning Collaborative with a 9th Grade of 108 students (based on their January 15, 2010 DOE register); there's the Urban Assembly School for Green Careers with a 9th Grade of 98 students; and there's Innovation Diploma Plus, a Grade 9-12 transfer school "for students who have fallen behind and are at risk of dropping out," with a total current student population of 137 (and a less-than-sterling year-to-date attendance rate of 67%).

So if McCourt serves few or none of the kind of students who used to fill the halls of Brandeis, that leaves Global Learning and Green Careers, each of which looks to be targeting enrollment of 425-450. Innovation Diploma Plus might eventually ramp up to 300 or more, but transfer schools by definition would not be taking in incoming 9th graders who might have attended Brandeis were it still operating. A few more might make it through the McCourt H.S. screening process, so let's say that brings us to 250 annual incoming ninth graders. Even if the DOE eventually adds two more small high schools in the building, it seems unlikely that the total number of incoming ninth graders in the building would exceed five or six hundred.

Here's the rub. As recently as 2005-06, the old Brandeis school's CEP reported a Grade 9 population alone of 1,243 (with total 9-12 enrollment of 2,751). Those 1,243 ninth graders would be looking at perhaps 250 available seats this coming September and perhaps 600 available seats in another couple years.

Where do those 600 - 900 left-out students go instead of Brandeis? Not nerby Martin Luther King -- it's being closed. Not Norman Thomas -- it's being closed as well. Not Julia Richman or Seward Park -- they're already long gone. And not Park East or Columbus or Adlai Stevenson or Evander Childs.

If every other former large high school goes the same route as all these, is the end result fewer total public high school seats than before these closures began? Are they all the same as Seward Park, where a former, single-school student population of 2,542 is now 1,686 spread over five schools? Or Canarsie High School, still phasing out from when it housed 2,885 students in 2007 and now has three new schools with combined Grade 9 and 10 populations of just 564 (which projects out to full enrollments of perhaps 1,100)? Even with two more schools added to the Canarsie Education Complex, the total served populatin would probably just reach 2,000.

Will the net impact be the same in all these new, multi-school "education complexes" (Bushwick, Franklin K. Lane, Wingate, Tilden, Far Rockaway, Beach Channel, Evander Childs, Adlai Stevenson, Martin Luther King, Paul Robeson, Jamaica, Alfred E. Smith, etc.) compared to their former, single-school enrollments? The performance numbers (attendance, Regents pass rates, graduation rate) for the small, replacement schools may look better now, but how much of that is the result of skimming off the cream? Maybe Canarsie and Brandeis were overcrowded before, but that begs the question of where those missing (unaccommodatable) students will have gone, perhaps 800 or so in each of those two schools alone. And where do the ELL and Special Education kids go who previously attended those now- (or soon-to-be-) closed schools?

Is this the DOE's version of "new math?" Or is it a form of forced educational triage?

Duncan Plots “All-Natural” Turnaround Strategy

February 12, 2010 (GBN News): Education secretary Arne Duncan, looking to apply the lessons of Hurricane Katrina as well as those of the more recent disaster in Haiti, is developing a new “turnaround” strategy for American schools, according to sources at the USDOE. The Secretary, who recently said that that Katrina was the "best thing" to happen to the New Orleans schools, has reportedly been telling staffers that the key is to be proactive. “We can’t just sit around and wait for a disaster to happen to fix the schools,” Mr. Duncan was said to have told his top aides at a recent meeting. “We have to make one happen.”

Details of the Secretary’s plan have been cloaked in secrecy, but insiders told GBN News that Mr. Duncan recently met with NASA officials to determine the feasibility of diverting a “near Earth” asteroid towards failing schools. The Secretary was also said to have emailed the US Army Corps of Engineers to ask if, when the unusually large snow pack melts this spring, the resultant flooding can be directed towards other such schools.

While the Corps of Engineers reportedly rebuffed Mr. Duncan’s overture (“Destroying stuff in order to save it went out with Vietnam”, he was told), rumors of the Secretary's other plans have sent shock waves through a number of major US school systems. But education officials in New York were not concerned. “He won’t target us,” said a source at the NY City DOE, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We’ve already got Joel Klein and Mayor Bloomberg. There’s no natural disaster on the planet that can top their track record in destroying public schools.”

Scorched earth policies in the closings of schools

Check out my latest on the Huffington Post: Parents, students and civil rights advocates protest the mass closings of public schools:

Instead of strengthening our neighborhood schools, that have for
generations accepted and served a variety of students, and providing resources and reforms like smaller classes that have been proven to work, officials are pursuing a scorched earth policy - as during the Vietnam war, when the military claimed they were forced to destroy
villages in order to save them.

Also:

Some day these misconceived policies will be recognized as the
educational equivalent of practices pursued by civic authorities the 1950's and 1960's to remake entire neighborhoods in the name of "urban renewal" and "slum clearance.

Also read the NAACP's oped in today's Daily News, in support of their lawsuit to block the school closings.

Why the building trades program at Alfred E. Smith HS should not be shut down!

On January 26th the NYC Department of Education voted to phase out 19 public city schools. Alfred E. Smith Career & Technical HS was one of the original 20 schools to be voted on.

As you may know, we were taken off the list (temporarily) in part due to "feedback from the community and the demand for an automotive program to continue to exist in the Bronx."

Despite this, we're still in a crisis situation as the DoE plans to phase out our Building Trades program and move two existing schools into the building and co-locate with Alfred E. Smith (Bronx Haven High School and the New York City Charter High School for Architecture, Engineering and Construction Industries).

We welcome change, however, phasing-out our Building Trades Program in one of the poorest congressional districts in the United States and replacing it with a for-profit, fragmented charter school that doesn't offer endorsed diplomas or hands-on training is unambiguously a mistake.

(Here's a photo of electrical, architectural drafting, HVAC, plumbing, and carpentry students, collaborating to build a functional model house on site at AES.)

Eliminating Career and Technical Education in electrical, plumbing, carpentry, architectural drafting, and Heating, Ventilating, and Air Condition (HVAC) for economically disadvantaged South Bronx students is an educational injustice. We need your support. If interested and available, please consider attending our public hearing, PEP vote and/or simply submit a public comment (instructions below) in support of keeping our Building Trades Program open. Your support is much appreciated!

See this link, with 14 reasons not to phase out Alfred E Smith Career & Technical Education High School.

--Nathaniel Thayer Wight, MS CCC-SLP, Speech & Language Pathologist; Green Science Club Coordinator / Teacher at Nwight@schools.nyc.gov

I. Please attend the Public Hearing at 5:30 PM on Friday, February 12th, 2010 at Alfred E. Smith CTE High School, 333 East 151st Street, Bronx

Those who wish to speak will be given two minutes to provide their input regarding why Building Trades shouldn't be shut down. Our ability to show how important the school is to the students, parents and community will be considered by the Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) when they vote on February 24th. Your attendance would be very appreciated and invaluable.

II. Attend the PEP hearing and vote on phasing out of AES Building Trades: at 6 PM on Wed., February 24, 2010 at the High School of Fashion Industries, 225 West 24 St., Manhattan; come at 5:30 PM to sign up to speak.

III. Submit a public comment to Samuel Sloves (HS.Proposals@schools.nyc.gov, 718-935-4414). Put Alfred E. Smith CTE High School Building Trade in the subject line. Public comments will be accepted through Feb 22 (and through March 21 for 08X381, 84X395).

Feel free to use any of our 14 reasons not to close this school (available at this link).

For more on AES and why it should not be closed see NY Times article here; Juan Gonzalez Daily News column here; AES Shop Classes, Music Video here; and AES Student Voices here.

Number of girls declining in our selective science high schools

Much attention has been given in the media and on this blog to the declining number of black and Hispanic students admitted to the specialized science high schools in NYC, with only seven black students admitted out of 958 at Stuyvesant, and only 17 Hispanics, at this, the most selective of our schools.

Yet so far ignored is the fact that the percentage of girls has significantly declined at most of these schools as well over the last four years. Only Brooklyn Tech has had a stable female student population. (Click on the charts to the right and below.)

This is very strange since it goes against all national trends.

Moreover, it is even more hard to explain since admissions to these schools relies on the results of one very high-stakes exam, and NYC girls do far better on both the math and English state exams than boys – particularly at the middle school level. This is true whether one is looking at average scale scores or percent scoring at level four (most advanced.)

Have an explanation or even a guess? If so, please leave a comment.

Nine years of "torture" under Chancellor Klein

See State Senator Carl Kruger, chair of the Finance Committee, at the recent budget hearings in Albany, telling Joel Klein that its been nine years of "torture" under this administration, because of the way Klein has cut off parents, communities, and elected officials from the process of running the schools. I'm sure alot of parents would agree.

Closing the Achievement Gap? Black & Hispanic Students Disappear from City's Top High School

As reported today in the NY Times and the Post, a grand total of 7 black students scored high enough on the Specialized High School Admission Test (SHSAT) to be offered admission to Stuyvesant High School. The total for Hispanic students was an equally dismal 17. The under-representation of black and Hispanic students at Stuyvesant has been pointed out for a number of years (see 2006 and 2008 NY Times articles).

During my tenure as a parent and PA officer, there was much consternation about it, but of course nothing that either the PA or the school itself could do (most notably, a mentoring program for students already at Stuyvesant) could improve the dismal admission statistics. These are basically a reflection of the quality of preparation in the lower grades. No doubt the test is culturally biased, but that alone cannot explain the low numbers. And it certainly cannot explain the continuing drop in admissions, as there is no reason to believe the test has become any more culturally biased over the years.

According to the “DOE spokesman" interviewed by the Post reporter, “the demographics of those taking the test and receiving offers has stayed relatively constant in recent years.” The statistics on the DOE's own website tell a different story.

The state statistical reports for Stuyvesant (here and here) indicate that the school had 83 “Black /African-American” students in 2003-4; 75 in 2004-5; 66 in 2005-6, 66 in 2006-7, and 61 in 2007–08; the corresponding numbers for “Hispanic or Latino” are 96, 86, 99, 99 and 93. These classifications are probably somewhat fluid, but there has undoubtedly been a huge fall-off. Incidentally, the shrinking number of black students is even more dramatic when viewed against the backdrop of ever-larger freshman classes (between 2004 and 2009, the freshman class grew from about 700 to almost 1000 students).

Of course, the city's response to the continuing slide in the number of black and Hispanic students who “ace the test” (shorthand for making the cut-off for admission to Stuyvesant) has been more test prep rather than more instruction. Instead of teaching more math, science and English in K-8 (including correct verbal expression and critical reading of books and essays rather than isolated passages), DOE set up a Specialized High School Institute, which gives promising candidates “extra lessons and test-taking tips.” Predictably, the approach hasn’t yielded results. Although it seems that most people who can afford the often substantial fees have given in to SHSAT test-prep frenzy--"cram schools" in Flushing are given much of the credit for the explosion in Asian enrollment at Stuyvesant, while Kaplan and its clones are considered virtually obligatory for everyone else--there's little reason to believe test prep will make a real difference for a child who isn't already adequately prepared in the subjects the test covers.

The stories behind the statistics are instructive and heart-breaking. The 2006 New York Times article cited above reported on two kids in the city's free SHSAT test prep program, which was held at Stuyvesant. (I have edited identifying information):

[A girl], 12, said the very act of striding through Stuyvesant’s gleaming hallways made her feel smart. “You can be like, ‘I could be here, I could be in these desks in a year or two,’ ” she said during her lunch break one day. For [a boy], 12, who got an “overall excellence” medal at his sixth-grade graduation, the experience has been humbling. His teacher at [PS XXX] had called him a “walking dictionary,” but in the first seven pages of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” a book he read for the institute, he found 71 new vocabulary words.

How can a few weeks of "extra lessons" and "test tips" possibly prepare these kids for the SHSAT, much less the Stuyvesant curriculum? Consider, by contrast, the experience of several kids I know, who moved to New York after going to school overseas, took the SHSAT without much preparation or even familiarity with that sort of test, "aced it" and did well at Stuyvesant. Most did not even speak English in the home, but all were well-prepared to learn what Stuyvesant can offer.

When the Post reporter called me for comment last night, I practically fell off the couch on which I was dozing. The under-representation of black and Hispanic students at Stuyvesant is an old story, but a drop in the black student population from 2%-3% to less than 1% is astonishing. No matter how much BloomKlein may crow about increasing scores on dumbed- down and easily gamed tests, the proof of the pudding eventually is in how many kids get admitted to good high schools. A competitive-exam school such as Stuyvesant is not for everyone, nor would I suggest it is the only avenue to academic success. But I don't see how the administration can claim to be making progress on the racial achievement gap when the number of black kids who qualify for the city’s top high school has fallen to insignificance under their watch.

Bloomberg School Closings Condemned in Amsterdam News Editorial

In their editorials, the Times, News and Post generally parrot the mayor's positions on matters of public education. So it is inspiring to read a real editorial written explicitly to consider the point of view of those who patronize the public schools. Elinor Tatum, publisher and editor in chief of the Amsterdam News has penned "An Open Letter to Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott".

Here is an excerpt:

But what do the parents have to say about the way their children are educated? Do they have a right to be involved, or do you think it should just be the DOE that makes all the decisions from on high and then the little people carry out your demands?

Tatum goes on to criticize the poor leadership of the administration:

The real question is why the failing schools have not been able to be turned around. Is it because it just can’t be done, or is it because if you let the schools fall far enough down, you can, with the stroke of a pen, close them and open up smaller ones in the same space? Is that really an answer?

If your kids go to public school, Tatum's letter is a must read. It is an insightful antidote to the relentless spin put out by the Chancellor's bloated press office and their allies on the editorial boards of the Times, News and Post. Find it on the website of the Amsterdam News here.

Revised regulations regarding School leadership teams; let your voice be heard

Next Wednesday, the Panel for Educational Policy will hold a special meeting to vote on new regulations regarding parental involvement in our schools -- including School and District Leadership Teams.

School leadership teams (SLTs) are composed of half parents and half staff, with the power to develop Comprehensive Education Plans (CEPs) at the school level and be consulted as to the school-based budget.

As you may remember, Class Size Matters was involved in helping Marie Pollicino, a Queens parent, file a complaint to the State Commissioner against the way in which the chancellor had rewritten the SLT regulations, to remove the SLT's authority over both the CEP and the school-based budget, to give that power to the principal alone.

In 2008, Marie's complaint was largely upheld by the commissioner , who agreed with us that the Chancellor's revisions clearly conflicted with state law. This decision also led to the rewriting of the new governance law, to clarify the central role of the SLT and ensure that the team as a whole would retain the final authority over the CEP, and would be fully consulted by the principal over the school-based budget.

Now the Chancellor has rewritten the regs once again, in a way that we believe is still problematic and shuts out the parent voice.

Though we have several concerns that are expressed in the letter below, the most important is how the regulations need to be strengthened to ensure that a real consultative process take place between the principal and the rest of the SLT regarding the school based budget, and that the principal should not have the final say over the CEP if there is no consensus, as is presently proposed, because this would seriously undermine any incentive on his or her part to reach consensus with the rest of the team.

Finally, it is crucial that the CEC President or his/her designee in each district be included as legally-required member of the District leadership team, as is President's council; this is where real collaboration and discussion regarding school siting and overall district plans is supposed to occur.

Please, sign your name to the end of Marie's letter, along with the other parent leaders below, and send it to the Chancellor and the members of the PEP today. Their email addresses are included at the top of the letter.

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
email:mailto:jklein@schools.nyc.gov; PBerry5@schools.nyc.gov; LLausellBryant@schools.nyc.gov; jchan@dbpartnership.org; DChang6@schools.nyc.gov; JCorreale2@schools.nyc.gov; pepofqueens@yahoo.com; TMorales4@schools.nyc.gov; okotieuro@yahoo.com; gittepeng@yahoo.com; ASantos23@schools.nyc.gov; PSullivan7@schools.nyc.gov; THernandez5@schools.nyc.gov; JWhelan@Muss.com

To Chancellor Klein, Chair Chang and the members of the Panel for Educational Policy:

As the parent who issued the original complaint to the State Commissioner after the Chancellor's attempt to rewrite the regulations concerning School Leadership Teams in 2007-- a complaint the Commissioner largely upheld – I along with others whose signatures are below urge the Department of Education and the PEP to adopt the following changes to the A665 regulations, as now proposed:

1. In order to create more of a balance between all the members of the team, the principal should not be eligible to serve as the chair of the School Leadership Team.

2. At any time during the school year, when requested, the principal shall make available to any member of the team the Galaxy table of organization report, with confidential information redacted, rather than as currently proposed, only when requested by the team as a whole. Similarly, any member of the team upon request should be able to receive a copy of the Galaxy budget allocations and table of organization, as well as any other information requested on the amount and use of the school’s Contract for Excellence funding and/or other categorical funding provided by the city, state or federal government to provide specific programs, staffing or services.

3. To ensure full consultation on the development of the school-based budget, as the law provides, the first draft of the school-based budget should be reviewed by a budget committee of the team, to give advice and input to the principal. This committee should include both teachers and parents. The revised budget should then be presented to the full SLT for their further input before its final adoption by the principal.

4. If the SLT cannot reach agreement on the Comprehensive Educational Plan, it should seek assistance from the District Leadership Team (instead of superintendent as currently drafted). If after 30 days, no agreement can be reached following this assistance, then the superintendent should make the final determination, rather than the principal as currently proposed.

If principals are given the power to make the final decision as to the CEP, this weakens their incentive to form a consensus with the rest of the team, which in turn undermines the provision in the new law that the entire team should have the authority to develop the CEP.

6. A copy of the CEP should be posted in a prominent location in each school, placed on the school's website, and made available to any parent who requests it by December 31 of each year, along with a copy of the school-based budget, with any confidential information redacted.

7. The president of the district Community Education Council (or designee) should be a mandated part of the District Leadership Team. As currently written, the Community Education Council is left out of the membership of the DLT, which is a serious omission if there is to be productive collaboration among all the district’s stakeholders.

Yours,

Marie Pollicino, recording secretary of the Community District Education Council 26, Queens

Leonie Haimson, Executive Director, Class Size Matters

Rob Caloras, President, Community District Education Council 26, Queens

James Calantjis, SLT Support Center, sltsupport.blogspot.com

Sue Dietrich, 1st VP of Chancellor's Parent Advisory Council*; Recording secretary of the Staten Island Federation*

Lisa Donlan, President of the Community District Education Council 1*, Manhattan

Monica Major, President of the Community District Education Council 11*, Bronx

Patricia Connelly, parent, MS 51, District 15; Member, Citywide Council on Special Education, 2007-2009; Member, SLT, PS 107, District 15, 2001 - 2003, Brooklyn

--
* affiliation for identification purposes only

Double standard for kids and adults at the DOE

See today's Daily News about how Alexa Gonzalez, a 12-year-old student at JHS 190 in Forest Hills Queens, was put in handcuffs and taken to the precinct house after doodling on her desk. She remains suspended from school and attended court along with her mother yesterday. (photo thanks to the Daily News)

These overly harsh disciplinary tactics in our schools remain distressingly common and were the subject of a NYCLU lawsuit filed last month, charging that the practice of arresting children for minor disciplinary offenses feeds the schools-to-prison pipeline.

DOE officials said that this latest occurrence was regrettable -- and they yet refuse to alter the guidelines under which the police have full sway in our schools.

Last year the NYPD agreed to "test out" velcro handcuffs for children in 22 schools in northern Queens-- and in these schools alone said that restraints would be used only when a child was at risk of hurting himself or others. This was in response to an highly publicized incident in which a five year old child was handcuffed and dragged to a psych ward after a trantrum at PS 81 in Ridgewood Queens.

I guess Forest Hills children who reside in Central Queens -- no less the rest of our million NYC public school students --aren't so lucky.

Meanwhile, this week, Maura Keaney, Bloomberg campaign staffer, was hired to run the DOE's office of external affairs with a $143,000 salary, the same day that the Conflicts of Interest Board announced she had engaged in ethical violations for soliciting campaign contributions from union officials while working on union-related policy issues for Speaker Quinn.

In 2007, Deputy Chancellor Chris Cerf was determined to have violated conflict of interest rules and having lied under oath, with the special investigator's findings suppressed until the report was FOILed the next year. Cerf remained without any sanction in his high-level job, and later was tapped to work for the Bloomberg re-election campaign, along with Maura Keaney.

Keaney will now be in charge, as Cerf was earlier, of the DOE's extensive public relations and lobbying operations.

What did Bloomberg say about Keaney's being hired for a top DOE job on the same day she was cited for conflict-of-interest violations?

“I think,” he said, “she’s going to be spectacular."

Notices from the Panel of Educational Puppets

In a notice dated 12/2/09, DOE announced a public review period for a new procurement policy, the closing of 20 schools (euphemistically, "significant changes in school utilization") and revisions to "regulations." The scope of the latter was not made clear until DOE posted the full list on December 11th: no fewer than ten Chancellor's Regulations, including those governing Parents' Associations, School Leadership Teams and district and citywide councils, were to be voted on by the Panel for Educational Policy at its January 26, 2010 meeting. No notice was sent directly to the organizations affected by the proposed changes, not even to CPAC, the parent body set up by the Chancellor himself to "advise" him.

Sensing the growing fury against wholesale closing of schools without a proven plan to improve the education of the children in them, Klein evidently decided the PEP should at least pretend to listen to the populace at the January meeting. But he took pity on the members and dispatched a spokesman to Gotham Schools with news of a shortened agenda--no pajamas needed because the regulations would be considered at a "special mid-February meeting." However, DOE did not bother to change the notice on the website, leaving many parents confused about what exactly was going to be taken up on January 26 besides closing schools (a letter from CPAC's co-chairs asking for clarification on the agenda and requesting that the meeting on the regulations be deferred until late February went unanswered).

After the meeting, the PEP website (fittingly, just a tab on the DOE website) was revised to indicate that "At the January 26, 2010 Panel meeting, the Panel voted to postpone the vote on Regulations until February 10, 2010." To view the text of the regulations on the agenda, one must "click on the [corresponding] public comment period"--December 11, 2009 - February 8, 2010. However, the web page that actually lists the regulations still indicates that "Oral and written comments on these Regulations will be accepted from December 11, 2009 to January 25, 2010." The public is obviously entitled to assume comments will be taken until February 8th, but it is telling that-- as with practically everything DOE does that involves parents-- DOE feels no need to put out information (even legal notices) with a minimal level of professionalism.

Moreover, the website notice was silent as to the time and place for the meeting (Murry Bergtraum High School, 7:15 pm) until today. The PEP Bylaws provide that notice for a “calendar” (a.k.a. regular) meeting must be sent at least 10 business days in advance of the meeting and must include date, place, time and the agenda. If this were a regular meeting, the PEP arguably met the 10-day deadline, but with a defective notice since place and time were not timely included. However, the meeting on the regs will be a “special calendar meeting,” for which the bylaws provide only that notice must be given "where possible …. to each panel member .. not less than 24 hours in advance of the meeting.” In other words, the PEP bylaws do not provide for public notice of a special meeting.

Assuming no more stealth revisions were made to the regulations after December 30, the PEP has apparently also met the minimum requirements of its bylaws for a public comment period (45 days, including 15 days’ if substantive revisions are made) by posting the proposed regs on its website on December 11. Of course, these are minimum requirements that may and should be expanded where appropriate, as urged by CPAC in two separate letters to the PEP and Chancellor Klein. CPAC requested the regulations be considered at the March calendar meeting or, if at a special meeting, no earlier than late February in order to give parents and parents’ associations time to review and thoughtfully comment on these rather dense documents. Silly CPAC for believing a response might come from puppets—the PEP marches on with whatever schedule and agenda DOE dictates.

In the regulations expected to be rubber-stamped on February 10, DOE mandates parents’ associations send written notices to individual parents (by mail or backpack) at least 10 school days in advance of all meetings. No exceptions. Notices must include date, time and agenda. No exceptions. And those of us who have had dealings with OFEA and/or its predecessor (OPE) know that DOE interprets these requirements very strictly when it comes to PAs, missing no opportunity to tie them up in grievances for months. You see, DOE believes PA officers—volunteer leaders of organizations with little money and no staff support--must do their utmost to give actual notice to individual parents; a website posting or even an email will not do. Obviously, DOE does not subscribe to the old adage that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (incidentally, the PEP bylaws repeatedly refer to notices and other items being made available to the public “including including via the Panel’s official internet web site.” Query: where else are these things made available?)

The PEP bylaws also provide that the PEP “shall make available to the public…..an assessment of the public comments concerning the item under consideration prior to 24 hours before the Panel vote on such item.” With the school closings, boilerplate prepared in advance and cut-and-pasted was passed off as the required assessment. This won't be as easy to manage with comments on the regulations. I suggest parents inundate the PEP with last-minute comments (see here for the list of regulations and DOE staff to whom comments should be sent). Since they will not be considered seriously in any event, we can at least have the satisfaction of making them sweat to come up with plausible "assessments" between midnight on February 8th and 7:15 pm on February 9th.

The myth of the gifted child

Good article in this week’s New York Magazine by Jennifer Senior, about the myth of the gifted child – with only about 25% of children who were tested at age four as “gifted” repeating at 17.

It also reveals the unfairness of the administration's current admissions policies, based on strict cut-offs on high stakes tests, because the results are so highly biased in terms of race and class.

As one expert says, “Sometimes,” he says, “you look at a big city’s decisions to do this and wonder if it’s about nurturing giftedness or if it’s about keeping middle-class families in the city limits.”

The city's desperate attack on the NAACP following their lawsuit to block the closings of 19 schools

Yesterday, the UFT, the NAACP, the Manhattan and Brooklyn Borough Presidents, city councilmembers, state legislators, and two Community Education Council presidents all joined to together in a lawsuit to block the DOE's plan to close 19 schools.

The lawsuit states that the DOE failed to comply with the public process outlined in the new governance law, and that its Educational Impact Statements were woefully inadequate, points we have made repeatedly on the blog and in our official comments to the DOE. (Here is the memo of law; here is the notice of petition and affidavits from the two CEC Presidents.)

The best coverage of the lawsuit was from NY1, whose education reporter, Lindsey Christ, continues to excel. See below.



Unbelievably, the NY Times did not run any story about the lawsuit, though it carried the news on its blog (Teachers' Union and NAACP Sue to Stop School Closings). The lack of judgment on the part of the Times editors never ceases to amaze.

Meanwhile the NY Post has a twofer, in their effort to undermine the credibility of the NAACP for joining the suit; a predictably misleading oped from Dennis Walcott and a predictably nasty editorial: The NAACP in the schoolhouse door. The Post's own news coverage on the lawsuit runs only eight lines: NAACP, UFT in school suit.

Methinks the city and its toadies on the Post doth protest too much.

Really, who are NYers going to trust about the effects of these destructive policies on the city's neediest kids, the NAACP or Rupert Murdoch?

The Faces of Ed Deform

Check out the latest edition of the Indypendent devoted to the Bloomberg's administration's proposal to close 19 schools -- the best coverage of this issue anywhere.

Especially valuable is the centerspread -- showing how the destructive policies being imposed on urban schools here as well as nationwide are coming primarily from a small cabal of billionaires -- Gates, Broad and Walton.

The money of these men now controls the output of most of the inside-the-beltway think tanks, and they have successfully planted their agents inside the US Department of Education.

These moguls are pushing for mass closings of urban schools, the radical expansion of charter schools, for teacher merit pay tied to standardized test scores, and other ideologically- driven notions that have no backing in either research or experience.