Monday, November 3, 2014

Questions about Bill de Blasio's remedies for turning around struggling schools


photo credit: Isaac Carmignani

1.     This morning, Bill de Blasio gave an eloquent speech on his solution for struggling schools. The list  of 93 schools to get additional supports is here.  The primary reform offered,  extended instructional time, has been tried before many times, with negligible impact. It was one of the options that the feds allowed and that many NYC schools adopted as part of their “School Improvement grant” program  -- with disappointing results.  
 As Gene Glass, noted education researcher has put it, “Within reason, the productivity of the schools is not a matter of the time allocated to them. Rather it is a matter of how they use the time they already have.”  Only if the extra time is devoted to something different – like small group instruction or tutoring – will this likely help. When I looked at the class sizes last year at Boys and Girls HS in Brooklyn, another school on the list that has struggled for years, I was horrified to see many classes at 34, and a student/teacher ratio (including special ed classes) extremely high at 20.1. 

The other policy option that will be offered by the Mayor, community schools –i.e. adding social and medical services  – may help, but many of the struggling schools on the list are already so overcrowded that it’s not clear where the space for these programs will  be.  Already many of these schools are providing mandated services to their special needs students in hallways and in closets.  Without a real plan to alleviate overcrowding and reduce class size, it’s not clear that these schools will be given a significant chance to improve.  .

There is also is a substantial overlap between this list of schools and the 75 schools that the DOE promised last year to reduce class size as part of their state-funded Contracts for Excellence plan.  Unfortunately, we found that despite $600M in annual C4E funds that could have been used for this purpose, no extra funding to reduce class size was provided these schools, none of them made their class size targets, and in about half of them, class sizes actually increased.   Bill de Blasio also spoke a lot in his speech about treating parents as partners.  However, if he refuses to listen to what most parents think would most help their school improve  --lowering class size, for the last eight years the top parent priority on the DOE’s own surveys -- it’s not clear what this partnership really means.  

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Disturbing lack of financial transparency on the part of the NYC Department of Education and the Panel on Educational Policy



When Bill de Blasio campaigned for Mayor, he promised to improve financial transparency and accountability, which under Bloomberg had been highly deficient.  He also promised a more independent and rigorous oversight process by the Panel for Educational Policy, which has a super-majority of Mayoral appointees.  This has yet to occur.  In certain respects, financial transparency  has actually diminished since the previous administration. Here are just some examples:
In its twice-yearly education budget briefings, the Office of Management and Budget has informed Class Size Matters that the organization, as well as other education advocates and representatives of the city’s unions, are no longer invited to attend, only government officials. 
The back-up documentation for the proposed DOE contracts to be considered by the Panel for Educational Policy used to be posted by the DOE at least a week in advance, and now are only posted the night before the Panel meeting.  This denies parents and advocates the information they need to flag questionable contracts, see what the DOE’s rationale for them may be, whether they were competitively bid, and if the vendors are under investigation or have other issues that should be addressed.   
Now, only a brief three or four page document is available in advance, with merely the names of the vendors listed, and little else.
Already, the lack of information has proven to lead to unfortunate outcomes.  Last month, the PEP approved a new contract for New Classrooms, run by Joel Rose, who developed its online instructional program called School of One while he worked at DOE.  This contract should not have been approved due to conflict of interest concerns and also the fact that it violated the terms of the previous contract. 
When Rose’s previous contract was approved in 2012, it was a no-cost contract and promised a "free and perpetual license" to DOE to be used in NYC schools.  Even then the contract was very controversial.  Now, however, his company is charging the city $200 per student for the license.  
After the PEP approved the contract, the Daily News wrote about it on October 19, with the headline: Ex-Education Department official’s $420K contract violates ethics rules, critics say. I responded to the false claims made by New Classrooms and the DOE in my blog here.
Last spring, we FOILed the DOE for the 2012-2013 audit of their spending of more than $600 million in Contract for Excellence state funds.  This audit is required each year by state law, and was due Jan. 1, 2014, according to calendar of the State Education Department. The C4E funding resulted from the settlement of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, and is meant to be spent in targeted areas and help reduce class size -- the top priority of NYC parents -- but is instead being used by DOE to supplant city spending and fill in trepeated city budget cuts to schools.  As a result, class sizes have increased every year.  On September 30, 2014, nine months after the audit was due, the DOE responded that this audit had not yet been “issued” so that “there are no responsive records to supply.”
For at least two months, the PEP contract committee had three or less members instead of the five members required by their by-laws. As far as I have heard, none of the PEP members have yet received the six hours of fiscal oversight training required by state law within a year of their appointment.
Panel members are responsible for approving many billions of dollars in city spending, and millions of dollars lavished on private vendors.  It is their duty to provide strong fiscal oversight, and not rubberstamp,  as the previous PEP did.  In so doing, their members should push for maximum transparency and accountability in the use of education funds.

Ellen McHugh on the report of the Space-Sharing Taskforce



Here are comments from Ellen McHugh of the Citywide Council on Special Education about the just-released report of the Space Sharing taskforce.

This is Mom and apple pie.  Who can disagree with giving vulnerable students an opportunity to succeed?  When have we as a society ever, publicly, denied these students their rightful places in schools? The proof is in the pudding...to carry the food analogy.

One big issue is ignored:

"By state law, charter schools are generally exempt from laws, rules, regulations or policies governing public or private schools other than those requirements relating to health and safety, civil rights, and student assessment requirements.  It is the working group’s hope that all schools work together to implement these recommendations."

There's the loop hole that the schools in question will use to escape as many issues as is possible.  We will watch folks wringing hands and wrangling concessions.  What's new about that, except that we are in a two tier, twice funded, twisted system.  The Chancellor and the Mayor can say all they want about their dedication to and conviction that all students should have opportunity.  They join a chorus of many other Mayors and Chancellors.  This chorus has had a good deal of practice but no impact, none, on the issue of appropriate space for students with special needs.  Why not, you ask? 

Buildings don't change unless added to, most buildings were not built at a time when students with special needs attended school.  Since many of the students require smaller class sizes in order to have the necessary attention from teachers, the DOE needs to commit to lower class sizes.  A class of 26 students, with 40% of them having IEPs or 504 plans that are disparate and require different methodologies, is a burden that no two teachers can support.  No private school...Dalton, Hackley, etc.etc...has that number of students in a class, yet the fact that we, public school parents, are supposed to be glad or happy that we even have a class is a mockery of education philosophy and policy.

"It's difficult to manage all of the moving parts involved in sharing spaces within a physical plant, including cost sharing, staffing, managing equipment and repairs, and scheduling. As a result, resources may be used inefficiently and inequitably on many campuses."

Parents and community members have been commenting and complaining about this since the co-locations began.  A panel had to be convened to bring this to the attention of the DOE?

"Beginning in 2010, State law requires that in all co-located buildings where more than $5,000 is spent on capital improvements or facility upgrades to accommodate a charter school co-location, improvements or upgrades in an equal amount must be made for each non-charter school within the public school building"

Where is the documentation that this has occurred in a timely and efficient manner? If this has occurred in co-located schools then why are we still hearing about students with special needs getting services in hall ways and under stair cases?

"Engage the office of enrollment in work with middle and high school principals to develop and enforce reasonable caps on enrollment. These caps should work to mitigate overcrowding, which negatively impacts students, and prevent schools from receiving inappropriately high concentrations of high-need students."

This sentence scares the living daylights out of me.  Capping means that kids with special needs will be frozen out of the schools.  Adding trailers was not a solution.  Segregating students in separate schools was not a solution. Sending students all over the city to schools with space was not a solution.  Educating students with special needs in their home school, with their peers, their siblings and their neighbors, learning both age appropriate academics and age appropriate social skills is a solution.  

While I believe that high concentrations of high needs students is not a solution, who defines high needs?  Having an IEP or a 504 plan already determines a high needs student.  How easy would that be to identify and then arbitrarily limit access by knowing a child has an IEP.  Parents are already wary of the IEP process and now we are handing schools an easy way to identify, and deny access to high needs students. 

Friday, October 31, 2014

Mayor's School Space Sharing Study and What it Leaves Out

See today's Daily News which reports on a leaked copy of  NYC's School Space Working Group
study, posted below.   This afternoon, Schoolbook/WNYC also reported on the recommendations. This working group was run out of the Mayor's office and was designed to come up with recommendations to ease tensions at existing co-located schools, but also to provide guidelines so that future co-locations do not harm students.

As I was quoted saying,  the goal of consulting more with the community is commendable, but there should be a complete moratorium on all school co-locations, charter and otherwise,  until the city revises its space formula to ensure that all schools have the room to provide students with a quality education, including smaller classes.

I was happy to see that the document recognizes the findings in our overcrowding report called Space Crunch that DOE has undercounted by thousands the number of students who attend classes in trailers in their reported figures (see p. 9 of the report below, pp 18-19 in Space Crunch.)

However, the study fails to mention how in the effort to co-locate more schools, DOE has pushed more and more students into smaller and smaller rooms -- with the minimum room size shrinking to only 500 square feet from 600 square feet -- in many cases risking students' safety, undermining their learning conditions and even potentially violating the building code. (see p. 21 of Space Crunch.).

It also omits the fact that many public schools have lost their art, music and science rooms, as well as libraries because of forced co-locations.  Truly, co-locations have eaten up valuable classroom space in the process of replicating administrative and specialty spaces, contributing to worsening overcrowding throughout our system.


Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Karen Sprowal on the negative impact of excessive class sizes on students with disabilities



Yesterday there were hearings of the NYC Council Education Committee on the myriad problems with special education in NYC schools; with thousands of children denied their mandated services, and pushed into classes that were too large to meet their needs.  Here is an article from CapitalNY,  that mentions the testimony of a parent whose son died while waiting for a private school placement.  Below is the testimony that Karen Sprowal gave on behalf of Class Size Matters.

October 28, 2014

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.  My name is Karen Sprowal, I am a public school parent of a sixth grader with special needs. I am here speaking to you today on behalf of Class Size Matters a citywide advocacy group devoted to providing information on the benefits of smaller classes to parents and others nationwide.

A few weeks ago, 73 professors of education and psychology sent a letter to Chancellor Farina, pointing out that the sharp increase in class sizes over the last few years was not only undermining the quality of education in our schools, but also working against the potential benefits of the administration’s special education initiatives:  

“We believe that the benefits of many of the other positive reforms that the city is pursuing, such as increasing access to Universal prekindergarten, establishing community schools, and inclusion for students with disabilities, will be undermined unless the trend of growing class sizes is reversed in the city’s public schools. In particular, placing students with special needs into classes of 25, 30 or more will not work to serve their individual needs, or the needs of the other students in the class.”[1]

I attach the letter to my testimony.   As research shows reducing class sizes to increase student achievement is a proven approach whose value has been shown over and over again. Lowering class sizes will lead to a host of health and economic benefits, as well as substantial savings in avoiding the costs of private school placements and most importantly, enhance the chance of successful academic outcomes for thousands of NYC students with disabilities. 

Recently Chalkbeat reported that special education complaints from teachers rose 60 percent between 2012 and 2013, citing issues including too-large class sizes and a lack of services.[2] Our analysis of DOE statistics show that last year, 3805 special needs children in grades K-8 were in self-contained classes that violated the class limits; 10 percent of those assigned to 12/1 classes; 11 percent of those in 12/1/1 classes; 18 percent of those in 6/1/1 classes, and 9 percent of those in 8/1/1 classes.[3]

What is just as problematic is that in the effort to provide inclusion, the DOE is pushing special needs students into general education and inclusion classes that are much too large to meet their needs -- as these class sizes are increasing every year, and now at their largest in early grades in 15 years.  Don’t get me wrong, inclusion is a great model if class sizes can be kept low enough; but we all know this is not what is happening in NYC schools. 
As a parent of a sixth grader who attended P.S.276 in Brooklyn with a learning disability recently explained,  her son could concentrate better and he received more attention during small-group sessions with other special-education students than in his integrated class. The child himself said, “When I’m in my regular class, sometimes they don’t notice me.”[4] 
In 2012 a memo in which DOE instructed principals made it clear in a very threatening tone, that they could not deny a zoned student a seat in an inclusion class – until class sizes had reached maximum levels of 25 in Kindergarten, and 32 in grades 1st- 5th, and 30-34 in middle and upper grades:  
The need to cap a grade arises when a zoned school is physically unable to accommodate all of its zoned students. In order for a cap request to be approved, all of the following conditions must be met:

·         All GE/ICT in a given grade have reached the contractual maximum (K = 25; Grades 1-5 = 32; Grades 6-8 Title I = 30/ Non-Title I = 33); and
·         There is no mechanism to collapse sections, more efficiently program, or repurpose rooms; and
·         There is no other space to open an additional section.

“For recommendations that are not in the best interest of students, regular progressive disciplinary measures for school leaders and IEP teams will apply.”[5](emphasis added)
The result has been failure: failure for the inclusion initiative, and failure for too many of our children. I’m not just talking about academic failure. This initiative has also led to a rise in the share of suspensions experienced by students with disabilities as well – as noted in DOE data. [6]
The blog Motherlode in the NY Times recently published the poignant account of a mother whose son repeatedly acted out and was suspended as a direct result of being placed in a large inclusion class.  It was only when he switched schools and was assigned to a smaller class that his behavior improved and he was able to learn:

 “Last year, I saw my son, now age 9, at the lowest of lows in his classroom. He was hitting other children, spitting on them, stealing, leaving the classroom and even kicking a teacher. He barely got any schoolwork done. Things got so bad that he got two in-school suspensions.

All this time, Xavier, who is in special education, was in an “integrated co-teaching class” with a full classroom of other children. ….. Xavier’s school seemed happier to punish him than to help him. For three years it pushed him to the side because it didn’t know how to deal with him. I often wondered to myself whether this was happening in every public school, to all special education children or just to my son. 

Six months ago, I was able to get my son transferred to another public school. I’ve been able to see how a child can thrive with the right support. This new school is awesome. It immediately placed my son in the right setting — there are only 11 students in his class. Xavier is doing great. No outbursts, no being sent to the principal’s office. Instead, Xavier is going in early for math tutoring. He is passing spelling tests. He is rushing in the house after school to do homework because now he understands it.[7]

When my own child entered school, back in 2008, he was fortunate enough to be in a classroom with only twenty students.  His class sizes remained between eighteen and twenty-three from kindergarten through third grade. Despite the difficult learning challenges he faced daily, he flourished during those years in both general and inclusion class settings. At one point when he was well above grade level his teachers suggested that we consider the gifted program for him.

However, when he entered fourth grade his class size increased to twenty-nine students and it was apparent that more than any other factor, class size mattered for my son. As many student with ADHD he was unable to focus or be productive in a classroom with so many students. I watched in horror as my son unraveled, here was my once inquisitive, bright, eager to learn and happy child who essentially stop learning and became emotionally unhinged whenever he was in school.

His fourth grade teacher wrote on his report card, he only participated in class instruction when the class worked in smaller groups. By the middle of the school year in order to keep in school, he required an arsenal of IEP support services, including a crisis Paraprofessional. These services were badly managed with very little oversight, collaborations or accountability. He began having frequent meltdowns in class, his attendance suffered; he was subjected to suspensions and for the first time ever hospitalized just weeks before that school year ended.

Tragically this became a huge problem for not only my son, but for many other students with special needs who suffered academically as well the same fate behaviorally as a direct result of excessive class sizes.

During the mayoral campaign when asked directly by parents, Bill De Blasio promised he would reduce class size in all grades, to the levels the city agreed to in their original Contract for Excellence plan.[8]  Mayor De Blasio has yet to show any sign that he intends to follow through on his promises, and we expect class sizes to increase yet again this year in schools throughout the city. The city's lack of commitment to reduce class size and its failure to implement its own Contracts for Excellence plan has been devastating for my son and so many others like him as well. 

Despite class size reduction being the number one concern for public school parents on the DOE survey for eight years, in numerous town hall meetings this fall the Chancellor has brushed off parents who expressed the need for smaller classes.

The special education inclusion program will not work to help special needs children learn, until and unless class sizes are reduced and their basic constitutional rights to a smaller class are met.      

Thank you for your time.