IBO analysis fails to mention important differentials in charter funding

A new IBO report claims the funding advantage per student of  co-located charters compared to NYC public schools disappeared last year. Yet this conclusion ignores many facts.

As the report points out,  the state has added funds for charters next year -- $250 more per student --  and additional increases of $100 in 2015-2016 and $150 in 2016-2017 were approved.

Moreover,  starting last year the city had to pay all new and expanding charters a subsidy for rent of $2,775 per student for private space if they don't give them space in the public schools. The amount will increase next year to $2,805 .

Meanwhile, the city paid  $11,000 per student to rent Success Academy three private facilities last  year alone.

"The stunning sum for this coming school year will nearly double the amount the city pays for a typical charter school student's entire annual education, set by state law at $13,527, to above $24,000. The city has set aside $5.4 million a year for the next four years to pay the rent for the three schools."

Also, NYC charters are NOT subject to fair student funding,  unlike DOE public schools.  Since on average charters enroll fewer English Language Learners and students with disabilities , that means they are getting more proportionally per student than most NYC public schools based on student need.

Finally, the IBO still did not include in their analysis the cost of busing, even though they have admitted in the past  that charter students are twice as likely to receive free busing from the city.  About 20% of charter school students get free busing, compared to  9% of public school kids. 

Of course these inequities do not touch on the even larger disparities in private funding.  Studies show that many NYC charters receive substantially more in privately raised funds, up to $4000 per pupil or more.

Success Academy chain is estimated to have a surplus of at least $30 million, and at their annual spring fundraiser raised $9.3 million in one night.   In  short, the inequities in funding are likely to grow larger in future years if current trends continue.

How the question left out of the DOE parent survey was the most interesting of all

More on the results of the parent survey and the question left out in Schoolbook and the NY Daily News. 

When the results of the DOE's Learning Environment Survey were released yesterday,  the administration took credit for high rates of parent satisfaction, though reporters pointed out the satisfaction rates were the same for the last three years and this year, only about half of all parents bothered to respond to the survey.
 
Yet what was most striking was the question that was left out.  This question had been asked of parents since the survey was first given:  Which of the following improvements would you MOST like your school to make?  Every year since 2007,  which was the first year the survey was given, smaller classes have been the top priority of parents by far, among ten choices.

The question was included in the survey because of the insistence of parent members of the focus groups organized by Jim Liebman, then head of the Accountability office, to give feedback on the survey's design back in 2006.    This year, the DOE revised the survey without holding any focus groups at all.

If you look at the 2014 data, smaller classes were even more clearly a top priority of NYC parents;  as it was either their #1 or #2 priority in all but two out of 32 districts:

In 2007, parents actually wanted separate questions on each of these issues, especially as regards class size and testing, but instead DOE decided to group them together in this way.  In any event, the results have been an important source of data that could have been used if the Chancellor or the Mayor actually wanted to be responsive to parent concerns.   Unfortunately, since 2007 class sizes have increased instead.

In 2007, Bloomberg tried to obscure the responses to this question during his press conference by grouping together many other options in a new category, called "more or better programs."  I and others, including Patrick Sullivan, called him out on this naked attempt to obscure that class size reduction had been first.  Here is the NY Times article from the time: 

Mr. Bloomberg lumped together several categories to note that for 45 percent of parents, “more or better programs,” not class size, was the top priority, despite a fierce lobbying campaign for smaller classes by some parents groups and the teachers’ union.
“When somebody stands up and says, ‘I speak for all parents and we want smaller class sizes,’ that’s just not true,” Mr. Bloomberg said.
Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters, an advocacy group at which the mayor was clearly taking aim, said the survey pointed to the opposite conclusion. “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.”

In 2012, the DOE stopped including the responses to this question in their citywide summaries, though the data was still easy to find in their reports.  Now for the DOE to stop asking this question at all, after eight years, especially for an administration that claims to care about parent input,,  is hugely disappointing.  Here are quotes from yesterday's DOE press release:

Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña: "... I look forward to working with school communities as they use these results to identify areas of improvement, and develop the right supports and solutions to address them. The more we listen to the feedback of students, parents, and teachers, the better our schools are going to be."

But how can they listen to parent feedback if they refuse to ask them what changes need to be made?  And this quote:

“The retooled survey focuses on dimensions of the school community that past research has found to be critical for improving student outcomes. The goal of this work is to equip schools with actionable information they can use to support teachers and serve students more effectively….” said James Kemple, Executive Director, Research Alliance for New York City Schools at New York University.

I don’t know what is any more “actionable information” or research-based than class size reduction, one of the few reforms proven to help kids succeed, unless the administration is determined not to take action to lower class size, no matter what parents want or the evidence shows .   In fact, class size reduction is one of only a handful of reforms proven to work through rigorous evidence, according to the Institute of Education Sciences.

Of course, the DOE can keep on asking silly questions instead like the following ones, included in this year's parent survey, which are neither “actionable” nor ones that most parents would probably be able to answer:

Sadly, the omission  of the critical question of what changes parents would like to see in their children's schools is yet another sign that though the administration's rhetoric focuses on the importance of parents having "trust" in school leadership, it is difficult to trust their leadership  when they don't  even ask the right questions.

Our comments at last night's Contract for Excellence hearings

The DOE is holding annual borough hearings on their 2015-2016 Contracts for Excellence (C4E) proposal, as required by state law. The C4E program, established in 2007 in response to the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, provides targeted state funds that were supposed to be used to reduce class size and other approved goals in NYC and other low-performing districts.

Instead, the DOE has failed to follow the law, and class sizes have increased substantially since then.  The city’s new proposed plan is posted here: Proposed Citywide Plan. School level detail can be found here. the School Allocation memo here.  See our earlier fact sheet on this program here.

My comments at last night’s Manhattan hearings are below; as well as the schedule for additional borough hearings; all of which begin at 7 PM. Comments can also be submitted thru email to ContractsForExcellence@schools.nyc.gov; deadline August 15.  thanks!    Leonie A

________

Borough hearings:

Brooklyn: Wingate Campus (600 Kensington Avenue, Brooklyn, NY)

Bronx: Mott Haven Campus (730 Concourse Village West, Bronx, NY 10451)

Staten Island: The Michael J. Petrides School (715 Ocean Terrace, Staten Island, NY)

Queens: Frank Sinatra School of the Arts High School (35-12 35th Avenue, Queens, NY 11106)

Comments C4E Plan 7.15.15 by CSM

Why I support the Senate bill to revamp No Child Left Behind

Though school may be out, there’s a lot happening in the education world. Right now the Senate is debating a bi- partisan bill to revamp No Child Left Behind, called the Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA), NCLB officially lapsed in 2007 but is still in force because Congress has not managed to replace it.  The House just passed its version of the bill, called the Student Success Act.  For more on what's in these bills see here.

NCLB was one of the worst laws ever passed.  It led to a high-stakes testing obsession in our schools because it required that all students in the nation would have to score at proficiency by 2014 or their schools would be labelled as failing.  Because 2014 has come and gone, this has allowed Arne Duncan to impose "NCLB waivers"  by making states adopt his wrongheaded preferences for the Common Core standards and evaluating teachers via student test scores.

Now, for the first time in 13 years, there is a real chance to eliminate NCLB, There is a lot of misinformation out there from groups that wrongly insist that the Senate bill would "cement" the Common Core, when the opposite is true.  It actually would bar any Secretary of Education from forcing any particular set of standards or any teacher evaluation system on states from now on.  Though the bill is far from perfect, please check out my post on why I think the current version Senate bill is a important step forward, on Diane Ravitch’s blog. Here is the qualified endorsement of the Network for Public Education (on whose board I sit).  For a good summary that dispels some of the myths that have arisen about ECAA, see this Senate fact sheet.

NYC Public Advocate and Class Size Matters File Papers in Court to keep School Leadership Team Meetings Open

For immediate release:  Thursday, July 9, 2015

Contact: Leonie Haimson, leoniehaimson@gmail.com; 917-435-9329

NYC Public Advocate and Class Size Matters Defend the Public’s Right to Know and File Papers in Court to keep School Leadership Team Meetings Open

Today, Public Advocate Letitia James and Class Size Matters asked the New York Appellate Division to reject the attempt by the NYC Department of Education to close School Leadership Team meetings to the public despite a recent court order, in papers filed by attorneys from NY Lawyers for the Public Interest and Advocates for Justice.   School Leadership Teams are bodies composed of half parents and half school staff, mandated by state law to develop Comprehensive Education Plans in each school which is then supposed to guide the school-based budget. 

On April 16, 2015, Justice Peter H. Moulton of the State Supreme Court concluded in the case of Michael Thomas v.  NYC Department of Education that the DOE’s decision to close these meetings to the public was “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.”  Thomas, a retired teacher, had been prevented from attending an SLT meeting on Staten Island, and had sued the DOE.  The Public Advocate and Class Size Matters subsequently intervened in the case as petitioners on the side of Mr. Thomas.  

Justice Moulton’s decision for the petitioners and against the DOE was emphatic, based upon state law and Commissioner’s decisions that clearly demonstrate that SLTs are public bodies, have an important role to play in school governance, and thus are subject to open meetings law.  State law and Chancellors regulations even require that the notice of all SLT meetings shall be made in a manner “consistent with the open meetings law.”  As Justice Moulton concluded, “The proper functioning of public schools is a public concern, not a private concern limited to the families who attend a given public school.”

Yet following this decision, the DOE sent a message to principals on June 9, 2015, ordering them to close these meetings to the press and general public while their appeal of this decision could be heard.

Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters said, “Our case is based upon the fact that School Leadership Teams are charged with making important decisions and thus their deliberations should not be kept hidden from view.  The DOE’s decision to close these meetings contradicts the formal guidance of the previous Chancellor, Dennis Walcott, as well as the ostensible claim by Chancellor Farina that she would like schools to collaborate more closely with parents and members of the community.    The DOE’s rationale that SLTs are not public bodies because they have only advisory powers is particularly misguided, given that the authority of these teams is clearly laid out in state law.  We would like to thank the attorneys from NY Lawyers for Public Interest and Advocates for Justice, for standing up for transparency and the public’s right to know.”

Attorney Mark Ladov of NY Lawyers for the Public Interest explained, “Transparency and public participation are critical to improving the education of NYC’s children.  School Leadership Teams play an important role in public school governance, and their meetings must be open to the public and the press. The DOE’s decision to ignore New York’s open government laws, and the recent Court order, while this appeal is pending violates state law, and will cause irreparable harm to the public’s right to know if not remedied by the appellate court.”

"Every New Yorker has the right to know how our public schools work,” said Laura Barbieri, attorney at Advocates for Justice. “Current DOE policy violates that right by keeping the press and community locked out of School Leadership Meetings. How do the Chancellor and Mayor justify this policy? What information is being hidden from the public? The Court ordered these meetings to be open. The DOE refuses to comply. It is a shame they cannot see that secrecy breeds contempt. The public deserves better, better leadership and better accountability." 

The original plaintiff in the lawsuit, retired teacher Michael Thomas pointed out, “Without transparency, a promise of accountability is a promise made with crossed fingers.”

Lisa Donlan, former President of Community Education Council 1, concluded: “For the DOE to require in its own regulations that SLTs provide public notice of the meetings but then not to allow the public to attend defies common sense. Rather than waste taxpayer dollars appealing this decision, I wish this administration would focus on improving schools with all the support they need from the whole community. We want our communities invested in our local schools.  Barring members of the public from these decision-making meetings sends the wrong message.  By closing these meetings, the DOE is eroding the circle of trust that this administration's framework is based upon. ”

The motion to vacate stay with exhibits filed today is posted here: http://wp.me/a1uzCk-1mi

The memo of law http://wp.me/a1uzCk-1mk Notice of motion http://wp.me/a1uzCk-1mj

###