Students in 58 schools being given new surveys for teacher evaluation; check out if your child is due to get one, as you have the right to opt out!

Since last spring, I have served on a CPAC committee consulting with DOE on their Tripod student survey, which was given on a trial basis in 134 schools in grades 3-12 last year, after Commissioner King had assigned it to the city to be used for the Advance teacher evaluation system.

 I had and continue to have grave doubts as to the quality and utility of the Tripod survey for the purpose of teacher evaluation, as well as its $5.5 million cost -- not to mention the appropriateness of giving such surveys to children as young as eight years old.  The DOE officials whom we were working with last year had assured us that we would meet again over the summer, and have input  as to whether the Tripod survey would be used again this year.

Yet when we finally met again right before Thanksgiving, after much prodding from the parents on the committee, the officials who had previously been in charge of Tripod had now left the Department and there are now new ones in charge of this initiative.  These new officials told us that  it was too late to put out an RFP for an alternative survey, and that the Tripod would be given to all ALL students in grades 3-12 in ALL NYC public schools this spring, except for 58 schools in which students are going to be asked to take one of three alternative surveys this December and January.

The DOE officials also said they are negotiating to bring the egregious price of the Tripod down.  (The Tripod survey was developed by Dr. Ron Ferguson of Harvard, before being sold to Cambridge Education LLC, and is the favorite survey of the Gates Foundation, used in their controversial MET teacher evaluation studies.)  When we asked if there was any evaluation of the utility of the Tripod survey last year, DOE officials responded that teachers said it took too long to complete, and DOE has asked Cambridge to pare it down; but that no other analysis had yet been completed.  Private funds are being used for the three alternative surveys being given in December and January.

Parents are going to be allowed to see these new surveys in advance, and opt out of their children taking them, as is their right under the federal law called the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment.  A list of the 58 schools in which these three alternative surveys are being given this winter is below.

Here is the form letter schools are supposed to send to parents about the surveys, letting them know the survey is voluntary and how they can check it out in advance, and here is the opt out form, which all parents should be sure to sign and hand in to their children's teachers if they want to opt out of the survey. 

In the actual letter there is supposed to be an online link parents can go to to see the survey in advance, as well as letting them know they can check out a copy at the school office. If you are a parent at one of the 58 schools listed below, and are not given this link, please let us know at info@classsizematters.org or if you have any other questions, concerns or observations after taking  a look at these surveys.

 Here is more information from Eric Ashton, Executive Director for School Performance of the DOE:

Thanks for writing and thanks for attending our session and providing feedback about the Advance student survey. I’ve attached the list of schools that volunteered for our fall pilot. The list indicates which school was assigned which survey. As I mentioned at our meeting, due to the limited budget of private funds we have to use for this we assigned the surveys in order of price where vendors with lower prices were assigned more schools.

More information about the surveys we are trying in this round can be found here:

http://www.panoramaed.com/

http://www.youthtruthsurvey.org/

http://mystudentsurvey.com/

I’ve also attached the informational letter that the pilot schools were asked to distribute. In addition to the opt-out methods we discussed at our meeting, we also decided to ask the pilot schools to distribute a paper opt-out form which is also attached.

If there is anything else, please let me know. Thanks! -Eric

Eric Ashton

New York City Department of Education

eashton@schools.nyc.gov

(347) 601-4525

Advance Student Survey Fall Pilot
2014-15 School List

Our Co-Location Moratorium Letter to the Chancellor

On Nov. 18, along with many parent leaders and other advocates, we sent the letter below to the Chancellor, urging a moratorium on any more co-locations until all NYC children could be ensured of their constitutional right to a sound basic education, including smaller classes.  WNYC reported on our letter here.

It was reported yesterday that the DOE has turned down three new charters asking for co-located space, one in District 6 in Upper Manhattan, correctly stating there is no room in their schools, and the other two in Brooklyn, and is negotiating with them on leasing private space. 

Under the new state law, NYC has to provide free space for all new and expanding charters going forward, or pay them up to $2600 per student for leased space. After NYC reaches $40M in total rental costs, state will pick up 60%.

Under the existing charter cap, NYC already has 197 charters, 31 more have been approved to open over the next two years,  and 28 remain under the cap.

Governor Cuomo & Regents Chancellor Tisch favor expanding cap & will likely push for this in Legislature this year. We will be drafting a resolution, urging the Legislature to oppose any lifting of the charter cap, and asking the state to cover entire cost of charter rent in NYC.  Email us at info@classsizematters.org if you’d like a copy.

Co-Location Moratorium Letter_FINAL 11 14 14

Our suggestions to the Blue Book working group; please write your own letter by November 26!

Please write your own letter to DOE's Blue Book working group about how to revise the much-criticized school utilization formula.  Their email is below and  the deadline for submitting comments is next Wednesday, November 26.  They plan to present their initial recommendations to the public in December.  Feel free to include any of the points below; most importantly please mention the need for the Blue Book to be aligned with smaller class sizes, or else NYC children will continue to suffer yet more overcrowding, more co-locations and larger classes in the years to come. 

To:  BlueBookWG@gmail.com 

November 19, 2014

Dear members of the Blue Book Task force:

Thank you for reaching out for suggestions on how to improve the school utilization formula. I urge you to reform the formula so that it takes into account of the following critical factors:

1. The need for smaller classes.  The formula should be aligned to smaller classes in all grades, with the goal of achieving the targets in the DOE’s Contract for Excellence plan of no more than 20 students per class in K-3, 23 students per class in grades 4-8, and 25 students per class in core high school classes.  Right now, the target figures in the utilization formula are much larger in grades 4-12 (28-30) and also larger than current class size averages in 4-12 grades, which are about 26.7-26.8.  They will thus tend to force class sizes upward.  In fact, there is a clause in the C4E law passed in 2007 that requires that NYC align its capital plan to smaller classes – which has yet to occur. 

2. The formula should include space for preK.  This year, there are more than 53,000 preK seats; with 20,000 more seats to be added next year.  According to news reports, 60% of the preK programs this year are in district school buildings.  Without an allowance in the Blue Book formula for preK, the city may be subtracting the space needed to reduce class size, or other critical space needed for a quality education, as noted below.  Our analysis revealed that there are at least 11,839 preK seats sited in buildings this year that were over 100% utilization last year, according to the 2013-2014 Blue Book.

3. The formula should include sufficient cluster and specialty rooms so that all children have the ability to take art, music, and science in appropriate sized classrooms. 

4. Subtract the number of specialty classrooms necessary for a well-rounded education in middle schools, for the purpose of calculating utilization rate, as was done in the 2002-3 formula.  Now, if a middle school specialty room or library is converted into a classroom because of overcrowding, the formula falsely portrays the school has having more space rather than less.

5. In order to maximize classroom occupancy (the current efficiency ratio assumes 90% in middle schools) ensure that teachers have an alternative space to do their prep work and store their papers.

6. Properly capture the need for dedicated rooms to provide services to struggling students and those with disabilities.  The formula now is inadequate and depends on an abstract figure, rather than the actual number of struggling students or students with disabilities enrolled in the school.

7.  Though students housed in trailers or TCUs are now assigned to the main building for the purposes of calculating the utilization rate, those students housed in temp buildings are not.  Neither are students in annexes or mini-schools, even though they often use common spaces in the main building, such as libraries, cafeterias and gyms.  According to our analysis, nearly half of schools with TCUs, annexes, transportables or temp buildings were wrongly reported as underutilized in earlier Blue Books.  The overcrowding caused by assigning all these additional students to shared spaces must be captured in the utilization figure. 

Reforming the Instructional Footprint

The instructional footprint must also be improved, as the DOE uses this highly flawed instrument to determine where there may be space for co-locations.  Here are some suggestions on how to do this:

1. Re-install class size targets into the Footprint.  There are no longer ANY class size targets in the Footprint, which will lead to continued class size increases unless this is remedied.  The original Footprint from 2008 assumed class sizes of 20 students per class in K-3 and 25 in grades 4-5, and none in any other grade.  In 2009, class size targets were raised to 28 in grades 4-5 and in 2011, all class size targets were eliminated except in the case of Alternative learning centers, transfer HS, full time GED programs and YABC programs. Why these changes were made, and why the DOE held that these were the only schools that should be provided with smaller classes was unexplained.  Instead the class size targets should be re-instituted and aligned with those in the Blue Book, as suggested above (i.e. class sizes of 20 in grades K-3, 23 in grades 4-8 and 25 in high school.)

2. Restore the definition of a full size classroom for grades 1-12 to at least 600 sq. ft.  In 2010, the Footprint reduced this to 500 square feet – even though in the building code requires 20 sq. feet per child in these grades; meaning only a maximum of 25 students could be in a minimum size room without risking their safety.  (For comparison, Georgia mandates at least 660-750 square feet for a minimum size classroom, Texas calls for 700- 800 square feet, and California at least 960 square feet or 30 sq. ft. per student.)

3. Special education students should be provided with even more space, according to the NYSED guidelines of 75 sq. feet per child.  Instead, the DOE Footprint specifies only 240-499 square feet for special education classrooms; if the city adhered to the state guidelines, this would allow for only three to seven students per class. 

4. Increase the number of cluster rooms which now are very minimal in the Footprint, especially for large high schools, calling for only two specialty rooms and one science lab, no matter how many students are enrolled in the school.

5. Ensure that the Footprint allows sufficient space for dedicated support services, resource rooms, administrative services, intervention rooms, and SETSS rooms.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have; more information about these issues is also available in our report, Space Crunch, available here: http://tinyurl.com/m632rg6

Yours,

Leonie Haimson

Executive Director

Class Size Matters

124 Waverly Pl.

New York, NY 10011

212-674-7320

leonie@classsizematters.org

www.classsizematters.org