GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

1. 

   Jose

   September 30th, 2009 9:55 pm

   This is around my neighborhood, so I gotta tell you how interesting this is all turning out. By all accounts, Girls Prep is actually a well-oiled machine and does good things with the girls they have. Of course, they remind me of the Catholic school girls’ program a few blocks away, Holy Child. Yet, this is just another example of how the NYCDOE is playing divide-and-conquer. PS 188 and all the other schools in the area have had to give way to the charter school movement’s will. Where is the “public option” for kids around there? See: NEST.

2. 

   Versha

   October 1st, 2009 7:27 am

   Girls Prep is a public school.

3. 

   Elizabeth Green

   October 1st, 2009 9:57 am

   Jose, what do you mean “see: NEST”? I’d love to here more comparing NEST and Girls Prep.

4. 

   John

   October 1st, 2009 11:58 am

   Girls Prep is a public school. We actually entered our daughter’s name into the admission lottery a couple of years ago. I think it is very good addition to the rather mediocre zoned neighborhood schools throughout district 1.

5. 

   Michael M.

   October 1st, 2009 12:35 pm

   That Girls Prep is a public school ain’t the point.

   That charters get treated differently than non-charters by this administration IS the point.

   All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, etc.

6. 

   norm

   October 1st, 2009 3:03 pm

   Does Girls prep function as a public school? Are board meetings open to the public? Are all their stats listed in a way accessible to the public? Attendance figure, free lunches, ELL and special ed student numbers? Accountability to the public in all the ways public schools are?

   Hasn’t Girls Prep kept changing its charter? First a middle school. Then no middle school and an agreement to limit themselves to one class on the grade when they got space at 188. Now changing its charter back to wanting a middle school. Call it bait and switch. Public schools don’t have these options but must jump through hoops at a DOE that clearly tilts towards charters.

7. 

   norm

   October 1st, 2009 3:14 pm

   “The class breaks into small groups like this every Wednesday, but Morcate and teachers said that usually the yoga room is used by the elementary school students. On those days, the students break into small groups at tables tucked into corners of the hallways.”

   Where is the sympathetic story about the PS 188 classes being squeezed? The Gotham TILT!

   And the

8. 

   Michael M.

   October 1st, 2009 3:15 pm

   Am I reading the above right? A ONE-CLASS “school”?

   Folks, we are well on our way to a NYC DOE that endorses 44,000 such micro-schools! Single school buildings (aka “campuses”) that nominally house 1,000 students could be home to FORTY such schools. Best of all, “Space Wars” would be a thing of the past. And each “school” could have the gym for nine minutes a day.

   Seriously: this ONE room SINGLE school — with a 25-kid “cap” — has FOUR teachers? That’s a 6:1 ratio! Sign me up!

9. 

   Ken

   October 2nd, 2009 5:52 pm

   Hey Norm,

   In my experience of reviewing public school data in NYC, I can’t think of an example of information that is available for traditional public schools but not available for charter schools. In fact, because of the reporting by the charter authorizers, I can generally find much more information about charter schools. Do you have a different experience?

   I encourage people to review SUNY’s report on Girl’s Prep on their website (http://www.newyorkcharters.org/proGirlsPreparatory.htm) for an example of their reporting.

10. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 2nd, 2009 6:20 pm

    Not to worry, Michael- if we look past the spin to the facts we see that it is indeed one class and not a school….just yet.

    GPC admitted 3 classes of 5th graders this year, one year after they moved into PS 188.
    GPC had been “incubating” in nearby PS 15 since its inception in 2005, and had long outgrown the space there, necessitating a move.
    Despite the agreement between the two schools whereby GPC was not to ask PS 188 for additional space beyond the agreed upon joint plan, GPC hired a Middle School Principal, (incidentally, Jose, she is a teacher from a local Catholic school) and admitted 3 times as many students as they had room for.
    GPC had to rescind the extra 50 invitations to keep to one class, which is all they had room for.
    GPC also got the names of all of the enrolled students in the district in ATS and used that enrollment information to send out glossy post cards recruiting kids and their parents BY NAME: “Last Chance to Apply! Girls Prep is FREE, all girls, and a proven success…” in English and Spanish, thus breaking the other ground rule for moving in to 188- no predatory marketing or recruiting away of the 188 students.

    The SUNY Charter Schools Institute in a notice pursuant to ed law 2857(1) gave notice that the Board of Regents approved the charter renewal application on Sept 16th, 2008 for:
    Girls Preparatory Charter School Of New York: Located at 333 East 4th Street, 5th floor, New York, NY, NYC CSD1; charter renewal commencing March 23 2009, and terminating July 31, 2010: proposed final enrollment /grades served- 248 students/K-5.

    SUNY Trustees approved the same on June 9, 2008
    This renewal was received on March 9, 2008.

    On September 17, 2009 SUNY Trustees announced that Girls Prep had applied for a 5 year charter renewal commencing on July 2, 2010, with a proposed 1st year enrollment/grades/served-268 students/K-5; proposed 5th year enrollment /grades served -525 students/K-8.

    Interestingly, in the charter application renewal questions, GPC states that it:” plans to open a Middle School in August 2009… to serve grades K-8 at full capacity.
    …at full capacity, during the 4th year of the second charter term Girls Prep will serve 437 students in grades K-8, including approximately 242 students in grades K-4 and 195 students in grades 5-8.”

    Let’s hope they teach math better than they use it!
    At the CEC One meeting, OPD agreed that the targeted space Girls Prep had requested was for 3 classes of 25 students each per grade for grades 5, 6, 7, 8th or for 300 seats, and handed out a “fact sheet” that stated they would serve 300 students in grades K-5 at capacity.
    Anyone not getting this new math????

    The issue is not whether or not the 57% of students out of district and the 43% in district students who attend GPC on the LES deserve 300 more seats to create a middle school.

    The question is who will need to give up what in order to make those seats available to this privately managed charter that serves no ELL’s (in a district that averages over 12% ELL), while 8% of their students have IEPS requiring SETTS ( in a district with the same 8% average of SETTS IEPs, plus additionally 15% on average of our district elementary students requiring the More Restrictive Environments of either CTT or Self Contained classes, classes that Girls Prep does not offer, while in middle schools the district average is 21% of students requiring CTT or self contained classrooms.
    Will GPC take in thsoe students with IEPs requiring thsose settings if they do not offer them?
    Will more high needs students be pushed into the remaining schools in the remaining real estate?
    Is this the way we want to make decisions about serving children? What happened to Children First?
    It is starting to look a lot like private management first, or maybe certian children first….

    On the OPD chopping block are:

    PS 20 (w/ostensibly 19 spare rooms according to OPD)
    PS 184 (w/ supposedly 20 unused rooms)
    JHS 56 (on paper has 30 rooms over capacity)
    PS 188 (that has 11 extra rooms)

    These numbers are based on the flawed blue book and principals use survey that fail to take into account real capacity and use, as they are based on unreal constructs that don’t “count” cluster rooms used for art, music, dance, theater, speech therapy, counseling, OT, PT, administrative offices ( there are more offices in school buildings housing one or more schools), etc.

    JHS 56 for example houses 3 separate schools ( 2 MS, and one 6-12) which all have administrative offices; the NYC DoE’s NASA space center; as well as the District Office ( with full time employees: the CEC AA, the DFA and the district superintendent’s temp worker); but these rooms can not be part of the “footprint” since they are unique and not formulaic.

    The 3 schools in the JHS building serve 27, 30 and 36% special education students requiring CTT or self contained class, respectively. Two school surpass the district average for ELLswith 15% of students classified as ELL’s ,and one school is a Title III school.
    In fact at one of the middle schools only 21% of the population is not either ELL or Special Education designated.

    How does the new governance law that requires local hearings and an impact statement (to be created by DoE) operate to take into account the kinds of students being served, how well they are being served and how best to use the limited space in public school buildings? What will be the value of “consulting” with the CEC or DLT in the case that the recommendations favored by the chancellor do not sway the elected local governing bodies? Keep your eye on cases like these to see how good the new governance laws are at providing transparency, accountability and community input and oversight to these thorny issues. Lisa Donlan

11. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 2nd, 2009 6:34 pm

    Hi Ken,
    Thanks for the link.

    I had to ask my superintendent and then the Office of Charter schools who then passed my email along to the school principals to obtain the latest enrollment and demographic data since both schools DoE web pages listed the school data as “unavailable”.

    My request turned into an alarm to all charter parents to come on out to a supposed CEC charter hearing where the charters were under threat, their management was not allowed to speak and the CEC had taken an anti charter stance.
    The alarmist emails were signed by an elected PTA officer along with her title and the head of a charter parent group, also by title.
    These folks not only did not have their facts straight ( it was not a hearing, everyone was allowed and encouraged to speak at the public session) but they had gotten their own history wrong as well, as we had welcomed all of the schools and parents from the charters into our community at their public hearings, even inviting them to join and attend our Presidents Council and CEC, since they dio not benefit form the same representation parents in public district schools do.
    It is of great concern to me that a simple request for what should be public data is seen as a threat.

    Since you are better at negotiating the information than I am, can you kindly show me where the GPC Board meeting notices and minutes, and not for profit financials are located?
    I have tried to obtain those documents for other charters, even going as far as completing a FOIL but have never managed to actually get a response.

    Lisa

12. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 2nd, 2009 6:56 pm

    If you follow the link that Ken provides you will see that the GP charter’s planned grades are K-5th.

    At our recent CEC meeting the charter management company reps tried telling me this was just some bureaucratic snafu and that GP had always been chartered for a K-8th.

    Ergo moving in to PS 188 and revising their charter down was NOT a bait and switch but some kind of paper chase misunderstanding. Even unfettered charters have bureaucracy to deal with it seems.

    I am looking for a way to document the GPC administrations claims that they always planned to be a K-8 and that the public charter hearing in which they dialed back to two classes per grade, from K-5, was just a bureacratic glitch, and that the charter was always for K-8th with three classes per grade.

    Lisa

13. 

    Ken

    October 2nd, 2009 7:10 pm

    Hey Lisa,

    This post of mine has the summary financials for 58 charter schools including GPC: http://gothamschools.org/2009/04/28/charter-school-philanthropy-revisited/.

    This directory has complete financials for the same group: http://www.box.net/files#/files/0/f/26896084/Charter_School_Financials_2008.

    I wrote about my process to get these financials here: http://gothamschools.org/2009/04/23/foil-me/.

    You will note that I share your frustration: you shouldn’t need to FOIL authorizers to get this information. However, I have never seen any financial statements as remotely as informative as these for a particular traditional public school. At the individual school level, in general, I find charter school reporting to be MUCH more illuminating than what is available for traditional public schools. Would you disagree?

    I am not experienced with finding board meeting notices, but perhaps others can help you with this. Also, if comparable meetings are available for individual traditional public schools, I would be curious to learn about those, too. (To be clear, that last line is not sarcastic.)

14. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 2nd, 2009 7:50 pm

    Thanks Ken. This is very helpful!
    I will check it out soon- on my way out to dinner now.

    Just want to add to this conversation quickly- thanks to the docs you did reference I found out that the GPCharter folks were spinning/telling stories when they grabbed me after our CEC meeting to explain away the disconnect between the previous chartering info and the newest proposal.

    Planning year snafu my…well, you know what!

    I saw that: “ the school’s original charter application and charter originally granted authority to provide instruction in K through 5th grade.
    The school’s decision planning year … the charter was amended in May 2004 and limited expansion to 4th grade.

    I also learned that there have been several ”deviations from the design elements in the original charter:

    From 8am to 5 pm to the current 8 am to 3 or 3:45 pm ( 3/4th grades)

    Initiating Spanish instruction in 3rd grade instead of K

    Increasing class size from 22 to 25

    Reducing number of classes on each grade form 3 to 2

    Reducing the school year form 200 to 190 days…”

    Finally- you are right that the DoE school financials now provided under mayoral control are far from sufficient.
    There is an SLT view that is better than what is posted and a Principal’s view that all parents and citizens should have access to, showing budgeted and spent amounts to date.

    The DoE – this Chancellor, under this accountable Mayor, will not provide these to parents or the public, as recent UFT actions/refusals have shown.

    Interestingly I learned that “the school has been provided space at essentially no charge by the NYCDOE.
    At PS 188 that translates into: 13 classrooms, 3 administrative offices, and shared use of the: auditorium,
    Library’
    Computer lab;
    Lunch room
    Gymnasium
    Yard.
    provided at no coast by NYCDoE.

    Lisa

15. 

    Ken

    October 2nd, 2009 8:12 pm

    Thanks Lisa.

    I think Girls Prep is a great school and I am very happy that it exists and I hope it grows. We might differ on that. I agree with you, though, that information about these schools should be easily available. In general, for charter schools, I think it is. There is significant room for improvement, though, and massive room for improvement for traditional public schools. Also, I question whether traditional public schools in NYC have ever had the information disclosure now available for charter schools. Of course, education historians might be able to shed light on that. And, of course, I might be in error on the amount of information currently available, although I have tried pretty hard to get a lot of it!

16. 

    Jose

    October 3rd, 2009 8:35 am

    I should have responded sooner, but what I mean by the NEST comparison is that, while I understand that Girls Prep is “public” in the general sense, it’s a charter, so it goes by its own set of rules, and everyone knows this. When NEST came in, I agree that it replaced a school that had a huge reputation problem (I believe it was JHS 22), but very few, if any, of the students who go to NEST actually come from the neighborhood or surrounding neighborhoods. While I understand the need for better schools and a reform of sorts, I don’t get why the students who were once there can’t get the same education / environment / funding that the charter schools do if indeed they are both “public.”

17. 

    Ken

    October 3rd, 2009 8:45 am

    Jose,

    Although no one has been able to calculate precise numbers, conventional wisdom (which I agree with) is that charter schools do not get more funding than traditional public schools. Instead, they spend the funding differently. Also, charter schools are usually operated by nonprofit groups that are independent of the DOE. The quality of that management is often (but by no means always) superior. Finally, charter schools are usually not subject to the UFT contract and, thus, have more flexibility in how to operate the school and allocate funds.

    To me, the answer to your question follows fairly simply from these differences. Of course, many commenters at Gotham Schools will give you a different point of view!

18. 

    norm

    October 3rd, 2009 12:30 pm

    Ken
    You say a lot in a very concise way. I can’t be as concise and will respond on depth on the Ed Notes blog.

    By far the largest part of any budge is salaries. So when you say “they spend the funding differently” followed by “charter schools are usually not subject to the UFT contract and, thus, have more flexibility in how to operate the school and allocate funds” these are loaded statements that are connected.

    Much of the UFT contract protects teachers from being exploited. Like being asked to work Saturdays or 12 hour days, which by the way many to anyway without pay. But that is another issue as to just how much the UFT contract is really adhered to. You’d be shocked at how much is not. But yes, a public school with experienced teachers does have to pay them based on the number of years (something we know the market-based people aren’t happy with - not taking into account that even in the corporate world people with more experience do get paid more.) If a teacher loses prep time they can put in for payment. I wonder how preps are dealt with in charter schools.

    Now maybe you think that issues like pensions and health care and preps and other issues are not of concern to charter school teachers over the long run. But maybe there is no long run for charter school teachers.

    So of course charter schools have more money to spend on lower class sizes by hiring cheaper teachers. But expect more turnover over time. As the economy improves don’t expect hordes of people to put up with conditions forever. At that point we can have this discussion again.

    I also notice you ignore the things Lisa Donlan reports on how Girls Prep pulled the bait and switch and the impact on PS 188. You left a comment on my blog that you support Girls Prep and it’s a very good school. What do you think of PS 188 as a school and do you also support them? Or does the very existence of a union contract make them ineligible for support? And do you really care anything at all about PS 188?

19. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 3rd, 2009 2:59 pm

    Ken,

    I had trouble getting data on the charter schools in my district that is readily available on DoE schools.
    There is a lot of information regarding performance/accountability and budget on DoE schools as was apparent when my CEC met this week to go over folders of information on each district school that our AA had downloaded for us to help us in our work as school liaisons.
    Simply click on the links at http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/01/M188/AboutUs/Statistics/default.htm
    and you can see PS 188’s budget ( many views and much more detailed than what you got for your FOIL on GPC) , performance, progress, education plan, quality review, arts report, attendance, class size, special education delivery and much much more.

    As for comparing spending at charters and district schools, the per pupil revenue number you cite leaves out a big piece of the picture, that has NOTHING to do with unions or fettering by bureaucrats.

    Charters have been getting a free ride NOT ONLY on free space rental of facilites/Capital/Construction Cost as the SUNY trustee report on GPC points out several times but they also get to avoid a number of costs such as:
    Food, Transportation, Library, etc that need to be made tranparent.

    .

    I have a slide I am unable to reproduce here on the charter funding formula that I am sure you would love.
    Feel free to conatct me at ;lisabdonlan@hotmail.com and I’ll send it to you.

    Lisa

    What is on a typical DoE webportal page:

    Learning Environment Survey

    Learning Environment Survey Report 2008-2009
    Learning Environment Survey Report 2007-2008
    Learning Environment Survey Report 2006-2007

    This report provides a view of a school’s learning environment based on responses from parents, teachers, and middle and high school students to the annual Learning Environment Survey. For additional information about the survey, click here.

    Quality Review

    Quality Review Report 2007-2008
    Quality Review Report 2006-2007

    The Quality Review Report describes what the reviewers saw at the school — what life is like there. The report identifies some of the strengths in the school, as well as areas where improvement is needed with suggestions for making improvements. To read more about the Quality Review Process click here.

    Progress Report

    Elementary/Middle School 2008-2009
    Elementary/Middle School 2007-2008
    Elementary/Middle School 2006-2007

    The NYC Progress Report measures student year-to-year progress, compares each school to peer schools, and rewards success in moving all children forward, especially children with the greatest needs. For additional information about the Progress Report, click here.

    Annual School Report Card

    The Annual School Report card provides statistics about a school, including enrollment, demographics, and student achievement. It has three parts:

    • Accountability and Overview Report 2007-2008
    Accountability and Overview Report 2006-2007
    Accountability and Overview Report 2005-2006

    The Accountability and Overview Report provides enrollments, average class size, demographic factors, attendance and suspensions, teacher qualifications, and staff counts. It also provides accountability results by accountability measure and performance on accountability measures. Accountability measures at the elementary/middle level are English language arts, mathematics, and science; at the secondary level, they are English language arts, mathematics, and graduation rate.

    *Comprehensive Information Report 2007-2008
    Comprehensive Information Report 2006-2007
    Comprehensive Information Report 2005-2006

    The Comprehensive Information Report (CIR) provides annual results on Regents examinations, Regents competency tests, second language proficiency examinations, New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Tests, elementary - and middle-level social studies tests, and New York State Alternate Assessments, as well as cohort performance results in social studies and science. The CIR also provides information on high school completers and non-completers and on post-secondary plans of graduates.

    •New York City Supplement
    The New York City supplement to the Annual School Report card provides additional information about a school, including additional demographic factors, its budget, and average SAT scores (for high schools).

    School Budget Overview and Detail 2009-2010

    This budget view shows major sources of funding for individual schools and the comparison of funding from last year to this year. It also shows detail on a school’s Fair Student Funding (FSF) allocation, which is approximately two-thirds of all schools’ budgets and is based on the number and need-level of students at the school. Learn more about Fair Student Funding.

    Annual Arts in School Reports 2008-2009

    Annual Arts in School Reports 2007-2008
    Annual Arts in School Reports 2006-2007

    This report provides information about the arts education programs being offered to students in each school as well as the resources each school allocates to support them. The Report is based on the school’s response to the Annual Arts Education Survey and on quantitative school data collected by the Department of Education. For more information click here.

    Average Class Size

    The preliminary 2007-08 class size report shows average class sizes at the citywide, borough, district, and school levels. To search for a specific school’s class size data, click on the link above and select either the “Aggregate School-level Data” report or the “Detailed School-level Data” report. Once you have the report open, press Ctrl-F and enter the school’s name or code in the search field.

    Special Education Service Delivery Report 2008-2009

    Special Education Service Delivery Report 2007-2008

    The SESDR provides information on a number of special education issues, including enrollment, timely special education evaluation, provision of special education services, movement of students to “least restrictive environment” (i.e., spending the majority of the school day in general education classes), initial referral rate, and declassification rate.

    CEP School Demographics and Accountability Snapshot 2008-2009
    CEP School Demographics and Accountability Snapshot 2007-2008

    This report is an overview of the school’s demographics, including enrollment, attendance, and special education and ELL programs. It also provides a snapshot of the school’s NCLB/SED accountability status, Progress Report grade, and Quality Review score.

    Attendance

    Daily, weekly and year to date attendance percentages report. Note that this report shows school attendance data on a 2 week day lag. For a complete attendance report, please go to Statistical Summaries and click on the “Attendance” tab.

    Register

    Total number of current students in attendance with breakdown by gender, ethnicity, as well as Special Education and English Language Learners.

    Expenditure

    Total expenditures report by school as well as citywide.

    Budget Allocation FY08 to FY09 Comparison
    This report compares FY 08 and FY 09 school’s budget allocations as they appear in financial Galaxy system.

    Galaxy Budget Allocations

    This report displays the school’s budget allocations as they appear in Galaxy.
    Click here for a detailed explanation of these allocations

    Budget Summary

    This report displays a summary of the school’s budget (scheduled items) as it appears in Galaxy. The budget is presented by section, with summaries of positions and budget amounts by assignment, subject or grade depending on the section.

    Building/School Facilities Report

    Reports and general information about the conditions of the school building, including accessibility status and department of health reports.

    Statistical Summaries

    The Statistical Summaries web site highlights summaries of various important DOE statistics including official enrollment, regional attendance, citywide exam results in reading and math, and employee headcounts. In addition, the site provides links to more detailed attendance and enrollment data.

20. 

    Ken

    October 3rd, 2009 7:29 pm

    Hey Norm,

    I have no knowledge related to Lisa’s allegations, so I can’t really comment. It does seem like she is jumping to conclusions and assuming bad motivations, but I really don’t know the facts.

    I have supported a couple of charter schools that operate under the union contract, although I have considered discontinuing that support going forward. My biggest concern by far is the education that the kids receive, regardless of which school they attend.

    I would love to learn more about PS 188. Last year, I attempted to visit 17 traditional public schools. Only two allowed me to visit. (To be clear, I don’t think any school has any obligation to allow me to visit. It could be an unwanted distraction. Interestingly, 14 of 17 charter schools allowed me to visit. To be fair, they probably knew that I financially support charter schools!) I am very curious to learn more about traditional public schools beyond the large amounts of data that I review and reports that I read.

    Perhaps you and I could visit PS 188 together?

21. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 3rd, 2009 8:13 pm

    Ken,
    What conclusions am I jumping to?
    Lisa

22. 

    Ken

    October 3rd, 2009 8:55 pm

    Lisa,

    It seems to me that you are assuming and/or jumping to conclusions that Girls Prep or the DOE is in some way acting inappropriately with respect to Girls Prep’s growth. That’s only a sense I get though and, therefore, is probably not worth mention. I should have stopped at “… I can’t really comment”!

23. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 3rd, 2009 11:15 pm

    John,
    BTW- there are no zoned neighborhood schools in District One; district residents can apply to any school in the district at pre- K, K and first grade as entry points and again in 6th for middle schools.
    1n 1991 the school board removed all zones or catchments as part of a larger admissions policy that intended to create diverse, family-centered schools of choice.

    Lisa

24. 

    Charter Teacher

    October 4th, 2009 8:25 pm

    Norm,

    In regards to your concerns about treatment of charter teachers.

    I am a charter teacher that formerly worked for the DOE. My salary is higher in my charter school. I work two Saturdays a school year (which I am compensated for). I have full benefits and MORE preps than I ever had as a teacher in DOE schools. In fact I actually work fewer hours at my charter school because I no longer need to take work home with me or come in on weekends to catch up. I actually have enough time during my planning periods to do my *gasp* planning!

    You need not fret about the fate of charter teachers. We can certainly fend for ourselves.

25. 

    Pogue

    October 4th, 2009 8:53 pm

    I’m sorry.  I don’t believe you.

26. 

    Michael M.

    October 4th, 2009 8:57 pm

    Just like TPS kids can fend for themselves in space wars.

    And what does ability to fend have to do with decision-makers doing what’s right?

27. 

    Charter Teacher

    October 4th, 2009 9:23 pm

    You don’t believe what you don’t want to believe.

    In the DOE I typically had 1 prep, 2 preps on a good year.

    This year at my charter I have 4 preps.

    My benefits are comparable to what they were at the DOE and I received a hefty raise when I moved to the charter school. And though the hours are longer than the DOE hours, I am compensated for them.

    Add to that the fact that I actually have all the classroom supplies I need to teach my students (instead of paying for items out of pocket, as I’ve done in years past), and can easily request more when I need them, I am more than satisfied with my position, school and contract.

28. 

    norm

    October 4th, 2009 10:37 pm

    Sounds like heaven Charter school teacher. Should I assume health care and pensions? It looks like the upcoming UFT attempt to organize charter schools will fall on deaf ears. As long as you never have to worry about stepping on the wrong toes you should have a long and fruitful career.

29. 

    Michael M.

    October 4th, 2009 11:34 pm

    Why do TPS kids come home with lists of $100 to $200 in classroom supplies, but charters’ larders are well stocked? (So much for previous crocodile tears from charter supporters re levels of funding.)
    And I’ve got a dollar that says CT’s class sizes are smaller now.

30. 

    norm

    October 5th, 2009 12:03 am

    Ken
    I’d be glad to visit the school with you though I don’t think there’s a lot to learn on these snapshots of a school. The best way is to work there. Maybe they can find us jobs.

    The issue raised by Lisa of the bait and switch behavior of Girls Prep should not be swept under the rug. Many of us view charters as a political wedge to undermine public schools. Girls prep may be a good school with dedicated people. But we have to examine charters as to how they function in the political context. If they use bait and switch schemes to manipulate to gain control over space in public schools then they are working against the long-time public good.

    If that leads to a divided and balkanized system that is taken out of the hands of public management then we can’t just focus on whether they are “good” because they serve a small portion of the public.

    Thinking ahead, is the goal to have 1500 schools under separate management using public money? Do we think that is a good thing? Especially since only urban school systems with their racial component are the ones affected while the suburban schools will have few charters and fucntion under public control?

    I find it interesting that avid charter supporters are also supporters of the mayor’s arguments about having one controlling authority over the schools, which seems to be a contradiction.
    Charter supporters talk about the bad schools or mismanaged schools, yet they have been under the management of Bloomberg for over 6 years, which he is bragging about while at the same time calling for charter schools to escape from his own management.

    Look at the rules BloomKlein impose on the public schools. Do charter have to adhere to the social promotion policy? Or the bake sale ban? Or the vending machine controls? Or forcing parents to enroll kids on pre-k or kindergarten online? Or the other insanities imposed?

31. 

    Ken

    October 5th, 2009 9:31 am

    Hey Norm,

    Lots of good stuff! Here are some comments:

    1. I encourage Lisa and others to investigate activities that they find inappropriate. I am not sure, though, how they will distinguish “bait and switch” from “changing plans based on learning from experience”. The former suggests ill intent, while the latter sounds like a good thing.

    2. I think our goal should be to have an evolving collection of schools that provide the best education for children in our city. If that turns out to be 1500 schools run by a number of different operators, that could be fine. I think we should leverage off of parental choice and government accountability systems to move towards the optimal system.

    3. I support Mayoral control because to the extent that the government has a role, I want that role to be accountable to voters in a comprehensible manner that isn’t almost guaranteed to be captured by special interest groups. I would like to see the role of government, though, to be reduced to an oversight role. I agree with you that the mayor shouldn’t be operating 1500 schools.

32. 

    Michael M.

    October 5th, 2009 10:56 am

    Ken,
    I always appreciate your comments.

    But re #3 above, it strikes me that the Mayor is clearly DOING the bidding of a special interest group — for-profit charter evangelists. So what if his wealth obviates any need to stick out his hand?

    “Cerf’s Up,” etc.

    As if the PEP provides any meaningful oversight under the Mayoral Control law as pre-approved by Hizzoner hisself.

33. 

    Ken

    October 5th, 2009 11:29 am

    Thanks Michael.

    I think Bloomberg agrees with charter school advocates. I don’t think he got elected because of financial and get-out-the-vote support from charter school advocates, nor do I think he is supporting charter schools because he is afraid that if he doesn’t, charter school advocates may end his political career. In my opinion, Bloomberg hasn’t been captured by special interest groups. Of course, that doesn’t mean that his ideas and actions are correct.

34. 

    Miriam Lewis Raccah

    October 6th, 2009 12:08 pm

    I agree with Ms. Donlan about the need for transparent information about public schools. These rules should apply to both traditional and charter public schools. We are all serving the public, and spending public money. A high level of scrutiny should be welcomed, and we certainly welcome all questions at Girls Prep.
    What I don’t agree with Ms. Donlan about is our intentions. Our goal in starting Girls Prep was to create a school that would serve the girls by putting their needs first. We started with kindergarten and first grade, and dreamed of eventually having a K-8 school.

    Because charters are granted for a five year period, we applied for a five year charter.
    Here we are five years later. What do we have? What do we now know?

    1. We have some of the highest student achievement in New York City. 95% of our girls are at grade level in ELA, and 100% in math. That makes us the second highest scoring charter school and the 10th highest scoring elementary school in the City!

    2. We have very experienced and happy staff, with minimal teacher turnover. They work hard, but they make a good living. We have 90 applicants for every open teaching spot in our school.

    3. We have 7 applicants for every student spot in our school. We give 100% preference to parents from our neighborhood. It is painful to turn away 6 out of 7 applicants, but every parent from District 1 who applied to kindergarten this year got a spot.

    Our parents are delighted. For years they have asked us, “Where will we send our girls to middle school?” What answer should we give them? Should we quote to them from our charter application, or try to serve their needs?

    Ms. Donlan’s line of reasoning, focusing on memos and the past, suggests that our intentions are bad. But what is bad about having created one of the best schools in the city?

    What is bad about responding to parents asking for better schools?

    Ms. Donlan, isn’t the question really about the 6 out of 7 applicants we have to turn away for lack of space? Can we talk about them instead?

    And on the subject of whether we came out in force to the CEC, our parents feel very strongly about the need for a middle school for their girls. They were respectful and attentive. They are taxpayers, and have a right to space in a public school building. They also believe that they have the right to choose which public school teaches their children in that space.

    Girls Prep parents feel strongly about their children, and we thank Ms. Donlan for the opportunity to listen to the CEC and to be heard at this public forum. You can expect us at a lot of meetings going forward!

35. 

    KitchenSink

    October 6th, 2009 1:09 pm

    All this, and the headline is that this charter WANTS to WORK WITH the community to find a space solution!

    I don’t know, charter opponents, this is sounding more and more like obstructionist “Obama wants death panels!!!”

    Do charters have more freedom than TPS’s? You bet - that’s why those of us who are working in charters, teachers and administrators alike, fled the system to be in a place that values our work and seeks to lift up children. Your concern for the welfare of charter teachers is laudable, Norm, but I think it’s a bit misplaced and patronizing. Certainly there are charters that abuse the privileges they have with regard to work rules, etc. The idea of accountability is that, in relatively short order, those reprehensible practices will come to light and authorizers will force a change or close the school. Have you spoken to charter school teachers on this topic before forming your opinion? Like Ken, I’d bet you’d find welcome acceptance if you called up a few charters and said, “I’d like to come visit and learn what it’s like to be a teacher at your school. I run a blog and I’m interested in the innovations of charter schools” etc. etc. Assuming your intentions are pure (that is, information gathering), you’ll know if a school stands by its labor practices if the administration leaves you alone with a teacher or more during lunch…

36. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 6th, 2009 1:31 pm

    Thanks Norm and Ken for this opportunity to debate and discuss the GPC and use of space in District One.
    One of the reasons I cited all of the official SUNY Trustee charter info and documents is because I see a disconnect between the talk and the walk.

    1. GPC revised their charter down to move from PS 15 to PS 188.
    A year later they revised it back up and are asking for a whole lot of space to meet their latest proposal.

    2. The Charter operators, who plan to grow more GPC like they just did in the Bronx, is claiming that the gear down and gear up was a SUNY imposed bureaucratic glitch.

    3. In the meantime GPC did break their own charter and agreement with PS 188 by admitting 3 classes of 5th graders when they only have room for one.

    4. The DoE has not honored pre-existing requests for space in the district for other worthy schools growth.
    Children’s Workshop School, was granted the right to grow from a pre- k to 5th to a pre-k to 8th by the Community School Board, yet no space has ever been made available to make good on that long standing promise, even though the CEC raises it every year when space needs are aired in public.

    DoE also failed to grant space to a project that their own Office of New Schools ( one of Garth’s early projects) approved, after their long development and vetting process , the growth of another successful local middle school (Tompkins Square) that serves local students well to expand to the HS grades.
    The project was approved but the space granted was not in the district, thus nullifying the very premise of the school.

    Finally, I have tried to indicate that the local charters do not generally offer the level of innovation, accountability and success that one is led to believe.

    Innovation: Girls Prep is at least somewhat innovative in the sense that they serve only girls, although many Catholic schools segregate by sex and both my parents and my college roommate attended all Girls and All Boys public schools Boston Latin, Boston English, Girls school in Philadelphia) so the concept is hardly “new.” Many charters seem to be using the DoE curriculum, DoE calendar for school days/hours and many of the bells and whistles that are supposed to make them magnets do not seem to be genuine.
    GPC has modified it charters to reduce the school day length, number of school days, increase class size, delayed teaching Spanish until the upper grades, etc.

    Accountability: Ken have you looked at the DoE data offerings and has it changed your outlook on the comparative access to information in public vs. charter?
    What about the various contradictory figures and claims in the different proposals?
    Does GPC want 195 new middle school seats as the charter proposal states? Or is it really 300 seats (3 classes of 25 per grade for 5-8th?)
    At one point did they plan to grow to a middle school? Why did they revise the charter down? Why do they want a year later to revise it back up?

    Success: If you compare the demographics of the students in GPC and the schools it has been located in or the schools it hopes to expand into you see a clear under representation of students with IEPs requiring CTT or self contained classes; students housed in temporary shelters, ELLs and in–district students.

    District One Girls Prep PS 188 PS 15 UNMS CASTLE HSSIS
    Total enrollment 11489 263 400 235 180 292 525
    % Charter students 11%

    classes/grade 1

    SC classes 0 1 3 2 2 3
    CTT classes 0 6 1 2 3
    SETTS IEPS LRE 8% 8

    % IEPs( SC/CTT) MRE 15(ES )/21(MS) 0 19 36 27 30

    % ELL 12 0 16 19 15 7 15% Title One 93.3 68 92.6 96.5 89.6 80.8 69.9 % STH 4% 4=2% 51=13% = 12% 6 =3% 3=1% 9=2%

    % in district 43 % out of district
    % Hispanic 48 64 58 65 62.3 58
    % Black 19 33 30 26 18.5 28
    % Asian 19 3 8 2 15.1 10
    % White 13 1 3 6 3.4 3
    % Am Indian 1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4

    I have tried to post this several times since Sunday, but have not been successful.

    The data is from several different sources and needs to be completed and vetted for accuracy.
    It is interesting that a CEC president can not access this sort of basic data for the schools that are the subject of space usage conversations.

37. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 6th, 2009 3:07 pm

    Hey Kitchen sink- the correct headline is: they do not want a fight!

    Which could be interpreted that they want the space and not the fight.
    But it was not clear that they wanted to work with the community, if you read read the charter parents emails in my last post.
    CEC One was the not on the attack in anyway- we are simply trying to look at the use of space in the district in a fact based manner.

    This “story” was pitched to GS by the same folks who started out on the attack, so any one looking at “intentions” may want to start out looking at those emails.

    Lisa

38. 

    KitchenSink

    October 6th, 2009 7:59 pm

    Lisa-
    I didn’t know you were the CEC president. Forgive my ignorance, I am located in a different district and I have no experience in D1. I applaud your proactive spirit and what I sense is a genuine interest in dialogue and getting all the facts on the table.

    I don’t know the whole situation, but I know the value added by Girls Prep and I can tell you it’s real. SUNY is not messing around, and would not grant a charter if they weren’t confident it would be a net gain for the community.

39. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 6th, 2009 10:13 pm

    I have been trying to post this, in vain….

    I am trying again minus some links

    There are number of comments I would appreciate further clarification on.
    The first has to do with my alleged questioning of folks “Intentions”.
    I do not question the school’s intentions. I think Ken hinted that I was jumping to conclusions regarding the motivations of GPC or DoE’s process for obtaining new and additional space in district public schools.
    Not only am I am glad that to read that GPC intend to put the children’s needs first, in fact I would expect it, of this and any and every school, whether they were created by the Community School Board, the Office of New Schools or the SUNY Charter Schools Institute.

    I no more mean to imply nefarious intentions than anyone meant to imply that the District One schools have any other intention than serving children first.

    I am trying to point out the breakdown between process and implementation, between what a SUNY Trustee approved Charter states and then how the physical space granted a school is actually used.
    Does the Charter have meaning and value as a documented proposal and road map that must be respected for the school to be in compliance? Do the space usage agreements negotiated between schools have any meaning over time? Can a two-year incubation in a local PS morph into 4 years, with no public notice? Do the hearings mean anything if the terms of the approved charter are not then followed?
    These are my question. I do not doubt in any way, as both history and the facts make quite clear, that GPC always intended to serve grades K-8th.
    The revision of the Charter down from 3 classes to two per grade and terminating at 5th grade, not the 8th, are the mystery I am trying to understand.

    I also did not make reference to parents attending the CEC meeting.

    There were dozens of parents, from a number of schools- several of which were charters and several of which that were not.
    All the parents in attendance at the meeting focused on the children and their needs.
    In my post I referred to the emails- pasted just below - that called out for charter parents to come counter some perceived attack, themselves assuming the worst intentions of the CEC simply because we had asked the school leaders for the registry info- data that Ms Raccah, Ken and I all agree should be publicly available , but was not.
    ________________________________________
    From: Mona Davids
    To: info@nyccharterparents.org
    Sent: Sun Sep 27 00:53:52 2009
    Subject: [Fwd: Ross Global Academy Needs Your Support]
    FYI - School and Parent Leaders

    I refer to the email below. Ross Global Academy and Girls Prep need your support at the upcoming CEC1 hearing. We have to organize our parents and support each other by attending these CEC hearings. Remember, your school could be next.

    If you require assistance organizing your parents, please contact us at (917) 340-8987 or via email at mdavids@nyccharterparents.org

    Best regards,
    Mona

    Subject: Ross Global Academy Needs Your Support
    Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:03:09 -0400
    From: quandasfrancis@aol.com

    Greetings Everyone,

    I am the Vice President of the Ross Global Academy PTA and we need your help. Community Education Councils are convening hearings about charter schools. When these hearings are held, charter school leaders and parents are not invited to be on the agenda. The videos linked below illustrate the agenda of these hearings to undermine the placement of charter schools as public schools in public spaces.

    Parents and supporters, your presence and voice in support of our school on Wednesday, September 30th from 6:00PM to 9:00PM at 220 Henry Street is critical. Speakers can sign up to speak from 5:30PM to 6:00PM

    Please refer to the report released on a study that was done on New York City Charter schools and the Achievement Gap.
    On average, a student who attends a charter school for all of grades kindergarten through eight would close about 86 percent of the
    “Scarsdale-Harlem achievement gap” in math and 66 percent of the achievement gap in English.

    Please share this information with all Charter school parents and supporters. It is time to awake a sleeping giant and we must fight for the quality education our children deserve.

    To our elected officials the charter schools serve a large number of students in New York City and we encourage your continued support in the quality education for all New York City children. Support us and we will support you.

    If you have any questions or concerns, Please feel free to contact me via email quandasfrancis@aol.com or by phone (917) 379-4888

    Warm Regards,

    Quanda Francis Vice President, Ross Global Academy, PTA

40. 

    Michael M.

    October 6th, 2009 10:27 pm

    There’s a fine but vital line — and all too easily blurred — between assuming all parents want the best for their own kids (granted), and assuming all advocates of specific outcomes and policies want the best for OTHER parents’ kids… as opposed to just wanting to see the outcome or policy implemented.

    Better we ALL stay away from questioning each others’ motives, and stick to the merits.

    That being said, I’m even including players with *euphemistic* skin in the game, be that political or financial — as long as those interests are public knowledge.

41. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 6th, 2009 11:00 pm

    Thanks for the input, and encouraging vote of confidence, Kitchen Sink, regarding SUNY trustee charters. I have been struggling w/understanding the whole chartering/hearing process, now made more robust with the latest governance law on educational impact statements and warning window.

    In a way this experience has become a mini object lesson of the whole neo-liberal reform effort.

    I have begun to understand that that the charter is more like a loose plan or road map than a legally binding contract, that SUNY may grant a charter without their necessarily being any real space for it to become realized and that the problem of where /how/how many, etc falls under the DoE’s Portfolio office.

    The story starts back in 2004 when Garth Harries who was overseeing the placement of Girl’s Prep in PS 15 to incubate for 2 years announced the charter at Prwesidents Council. I recall being astonished at the time that there was no hearing, no public meeting, no discussion of what space was available or how it could best be used.
    A done deal, no discussion.
    A year or so later I was browsing through the St Ann’s alumni magazine where I came across a recent grad’s recounting of meeting Joel Klein at a social function where the Chancellor apparently offered him “free real estate” to make the job of launching a charter school in NYC easier.
    Flash forward a few years- the 2 year incubation had turned into 4, a DoE big wig was set to visit Girl’s Prep and I suggest they take the time to visit the host PS that has long been squeezed by the charter’s growth. The visit was a success, allowing the hard working principals to showcase his dedication to the success of the children in the building. Shortly thereafter a new home was negotiated at PS 188 for GPC.
    The charter was revised down to make the school fit the space, and well,…. here we are, now- in a growing charter that always meant to expand in a district without the space for that growth (unless one pays credence to the Doe’s abysmally inaccurate blue book and footprint formulae that don’t manage to capture the reality of space usage in a school building, as every one knows).
    This week I have seen courageous your principals break down in tears of discouragement at the idea of giving up a music room or ESL cluster space to a school that “creams” by taking no ELL s, no students requiring more than SETTS ( ergo, no ED kids ), hell not even any TESTOSTERONE, and not even half the kids are from the community;
    I have seen an entire faculty panicked by the rumor that a middle school is moving into their elementary building and that the principals will just go along to get along; I have seen charter parents prodded into a fear-based frenzy that other parents are out kick them out of the community or deprive their children of a decent education.

    There are a lot of lessons to unpack in this small slice of reality- the places where the constructs meet reality, where everyone claims to serve the (neediest) children) and the ripple effect of far off decisions just keeps spiraling outward, touching new lives in lots of unintended ways …

    What a long strange trip it has been- and we are only starting on the 5 year renewal!

42. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 7th, 2009 10:50 am

    The St Ann’s alumnus who was offered “free real estate” by Klein was the young founder of Girls Prep, I failed to mention in my post above…

    So what do folks think about this concept of cost-free space public space having to be made available to charter schools?

    There are so many issues that it raises I hardly know where to start.

    There is a huge problem with the disconnect between the creation of schools on paper and then their implementation, in real ( scarce) space, with real physical limitations (no matter how “plastic” one calls the construct, a building is a building of brick and mortar and is not infinitely expandable or mutable)

    Does anyone else feel the need to comment on a point raised above- that charter parents “are taxpayers, and thus have a right to space in a public school building. They also believe that they have the right to choose which public school teaches their children in that space.”

    By citing the number of students turned away as further justification of the charter school’s request for more space to expand, the blogger points to the market, parents voting with their feet as a way to decide school enrollment.

    There may have been a long waiting list or loads of students turned away from the lottery but interestingly this year was the first year that GPC followed the law that stated that admissions preference must be given to district residents.

    Prior to this year’s K admissions cycle, GPC interpreted preference as: 3 out of 5 admits would be district students and the other two could be from out of district.

    As a result, only 43% of the GPC students are District One residents, according to the school.

    Someone got wise to this loose interpretation of the law and this year admissions was supposed to be based on strict district preference.
    Yet the K class is NOT 100% district residents- it is made up of 53% in district students.
    A marked improvement but still a mystery as to where the other 47% of district resident lottery winners went.
    Were they voting with their feet? Had they hedged their bets and applied at a number of schools, just in case?
    Choice is a funny thing as we know all too well here in District One, where we have no zoned schools or catchments and ONLY choice, as part of an early voluntary desegregation plan and effort to revitalize the local schools with the creation of new innovative small schools to pull students back into the underutilized buildings built at the height of LES immigrant population explosion 100 years ago.

    But back to the comments above:
    By the same logic, should DoE have disregarded the requests for parents from the Children’s Workshop School, or Tomkins Square Middle School, for space to expand ?
    Each of those schools turns students away each year for lack of space (TSMS, for example has waiting lists of more than 300 students year after year) .

    What about PS 137 that was forced to move into the PS 134 building to make room for an expanding supposed dual language school, Shuang Wen? Hundreds of parents came out to CEC meetings to protest but those taxpaying parents and community members were totally ignored.
    What about the hundreds or maybe thousands of of students who are not admitted to NEST or Bard HS, or Shuang Wen or stiyvescent or Bronx Science all of which turn away students every year?
    Do those taxpayers have the right to choose how public school space is used? Or is that only the right of charter school parents, who have earned a different set of rights?

    I thought the whole purpose of the Charter hearing was to air those conversations, but if indeed the terms of the charter are just some memo, some bureaucratic hoop to be jumped through, that can be rethought and revised as the perceived needs change, than what is their purpose?

    Given that a great many parents pay taxes, yet do not get to decide how public space is used, do we want to extend the logic so that any school, private, public, religious, charter, etc, have the right to decide how to use public school space?
    Should the local Yeshivas and Catholic schools be given rights to public school facilities by the same reasoning? Or maybe Dalton, Spence and St Ann’s should have space at no cost, since surely those parents pay plenty of taxes, too?

    What we are seeing is the free market economy masquerading as democracy; the confusion of an economic system with an ideology.
    We know from recent events on Wall Street and their effect on the entire global financial system that a market delivery system is not a social system. They are not interchangeable.
    Free markets present the worker and consumer citizens with false “choices”, whereby, absurdly, “rich men and poor men alike are free to sleep under bridges”.

    I prefer to think in the terms of an adage my old man taught me long ago: every one has to eat sh** sandwiches now and then- the difference being- the more bread you have, the less sh** you actually have to eat!

43. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 11:29 am

    If Girls Prep is using public funds, is it 50% male?

44. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 11:54 am

    Lisa,
    Re “Does anyone else feel the need to comment on a point raised above- that charter parents “are taxpayers, and thus have a right to space in a public school building. They also believe that they have the right to choose which public school teaches their children in that space.””

    Taxpayers have a “right” to public education for their kids, of course. After that, all bets are off. Parents do NOT have a “right” to a specific school, or a specific school program, or a specific school building. Heck, even parents of zoned kids don’t have a “right” to send their kids to their own zoned schools, at least not to the same degree as when zoned schools had ROOM.

    Which brings us to the case at hand. DOE has forced this to be a zero-sum game. It need not be. What is this, cage fighting with no ref?

    I have a right to my kidneys. You have a right to a kidney too. Just not mine.

    The programming of any school building’s space is simply not a matter of “rights,” though the game has been wrought with plenty of WRONGS, some real, some perceived. Some staged. Some willful.

    And I have to ask: What exactly are the “rights” of parents, activists, and “astroturfers” (foisters of faux grass rootsiness) from OTHER districts to rile up parents (from within district or not) to storm CEC meetings, let alone based on inflammatory hyperbole worthy of squawk radio?

    We all have a right to free speech. We do NOT have the right to shout “MOVE FOR ME”… in a crowded fire.

45. 

    Ken

    October 7th, 2009 12:21 pm

    Hey Lisa,

    To state the obvious, your comments are long and intricate. I, for one, am not even sure what you are asking or suggesting in many cases. A few questions, though:

    As President of CEC 1, which parents do you think you represent?

    How does the fact that a large number of parents in your community want to attend Girls Prep but can’t because of size constraints relate to your responsibilities as President of their Community Education Council?

    Could you tell me how you got elected and where on the internet I can find the election results, both for you and other council members?

    Finally, I would love to meet with you at some point to better understand your point of view.

46. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 7th, 2009 12:32 pm

    Ken wrote”…I am not experienced with finding board meeting notices, but perhaps others can help you with this. Also, if comparable meetings are available for individual traditional public schools, I would be curious to learn about those, too. (To be clear, that last line is not sarcastic.)”

    I do nor know the NYS not for profit law and the board meeting notice requirements, but would love to hear from anyone who can make it clear to me and others what we have the right to expect, and how parents can attend these meetings.

    I do want to answer Ken’s question regarding public schools and what might be “comparable” meetings:

    there are:

    school level meetings ( SLT/P(T)A);

    district level meetings (CEC, DLT);

    citywide meetings (CPAC/PEP).

    One of my biggest frustrations with the concurrent centralization of bureaucracy and policy and decentralization of school support and management via virtual networks has been the effect on community; there is no longer a place to get information, raise issues or make complaints.

    OFEA has been incapable of providing the structure and support needed.

    The parent coordinators are hired, deployed and paid by school principals so they fill roles anywhere from school aides to deans, and are as good at helping parents as their skills and principals wills allow them to be. In many cases they act as a wall or flack catcher between administrators and parents.

    The District Family Advocate has neither access to information nor the power to solve problems, and become another cog (or clog) in the wheel.
    Until now they have been largely unsupervised, since their “bosses” the borough family advocates were laid off years ago. Now they and their habits and job descriptions have been inherited by the CDs . That should be interesting!

    Yesterday I asked my DFA to help me determine the configuration of a new local middle school.
    She was able to get the registry and so total enrollment but could neither access the school (phone would not answer) nor its ATS to tell me.
    Just an example of the inability of OFEA to even inform, never mind advocate, or engage, parents.

    In my district we have made a calendar of PTA and SLT meetings as well as other events like talent shows, fairs, auctions and community meetings one of the goals of the DCEP’s Family Involvement Plan.
    It has never been realized despite many requests and reminders, because apparently the Parent Coordinators do not respond to the request for reporting in meeting dates.

    Our CEC meetings emailed to the school principals and parent coordinators, who often do not print out and run off and distribute the monthly meeting notices (in Spanish, English and Chinese) , even when we drop off reams of paper to make it easier.
    We send it out to any parent or community member who attends a meeting and leaves an email or snail mail address.
    We have no other access to the district parents’ contact info (only the US military and the Office of Charter Schools can get that info from ATS!) and try to build our own lists as best we can, as volunteer parents.
    I will leave the CPAC and PEP meeting notification for others to describe, since I have run out of time.

    Hope this answers your question just a little, Ken.
    Lisa

47. 

    norm

    October 7th, 2009 12:48 pm

    Ken
    This issue: “How does the fact that a large number of parents in your community want to attend Girls Prep but can’t because of size constraints” is often raised in a political context lurking behind it. Can’t we say the same about numerous public schools? How about NEST? How about Catholic school parents who want their girls in a school without boys but see Girls Prep in that way?

    Or maybe the parents want to get into Girls Prep so they can sell a piece of cake?

48. 

    norm

    October 7th, 2009 1:00 pm

    The real discussion about charter schools is so often diverted by the “come see how wonderful we are argument.” As I’ve said, there are also many public schools that can make the same claim.

    But what is diverting here is the political context of charter schools, not which ones work or don’t work. Ken seems willing to have 1500 schools managed independently in NYC. We must examine the implications of what this means in terms of a functioning public school system, if indeed we could consider 1500 privately managed schools as even constituting a public school system. Many of the opponents of charter schools view them as the political wedge, along with TFA to destroy teacher unions and engage in a takeover of public systems and that is why we oppose them. The BloomKlein open tilt in supporting charters while undermining the very schools they manage to make way for charters is part of the process.

    To the argument of the Girls Prep parent that you pay taxes and therefor have a right to space in a public school, how about Orthodox Jews who pay taxes and send their kids to Hebrew school? Or Catholic school parents? Or Dalton parents?

    Getting public funds does not make you public. Lots of private firms (see road construction) are totally supported by public funding but have no claim to the use of public resources.

49. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 7th, 2009 1:08 pm

    Hi Ken
    What a can of worms you open!
    Don’t get me and others started on the lack of representation the CEC’s afford parents and others.
    I was elected twice- those results used to be on the DoE webpage.
    In the first election 4 years ago I ran as a back up candidate, when my fellow Presidents Council members divvied up their votes to elect a slate that we felt was most representative of the district , as we had done the year before in the very first CEC elections. Our goal then had been to elect as many parents form as many schools and socio economic, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds as possible to try to bring as many community pov’s as possible to the table.

    I did not want to join the CEC particularly seeing it was not an effective place for parents, since its roles, rights and responsibilities were either ignored or rendered meaningless. On the other hand we were afraid of the section that allowed the Chancellor to appoint members if there were not enough elected so I agreed o be a plan B candidate , and was attributed just enough votes to make the back end of the list.
    ( Each school’s key P(T)A officers0 the President, treasurer and Secretary, each may cast one vote for tow different candidates.
    As a Presidents council we looked at our slated of volunteer candidates and took our 3 x 2x 25 schools votes and distributed them on paper to make up a diverse slate.

    Sadly I got in because many candidates were either vetted or dropped out along the way.
    I served as Second VP and then the first VP that term.
    During the next elections, the Presidents Council did not, as far as I know, use the same approach to voting.
    KPMG was paid a million or a million and a ahlf to run candidate forums and the electiuons. It was an ugly mess- candidates and electoirs did not receive timely notice of the forums, DoE controlled the format and it was a total sham.

    I received what one parent told me was a “veritable mandate” not w/o irony since it was a small number , albeit a large proportion of all possible, votes. Those results were compiled and made public by OFEA on the DoE website and at CPAC.
    I was elected President for the two years of that term by the CEC.

    The last elections were outsourced to Power to the Parents.
    Same voting rules, new vendor.

    I was no longer eligible to run as a parent of a district student since my last child had entered HS and had left the CSD, even though the school is located in the district it is a citywide program so I could not run.

    Many parents asked me to continue on as one of the two BP appointees on each council ; I was nominated, vetted and interviewed by MBP Scott Stringers staff to be appointed.

    In the current CEC One mission statement ( under discussion for ongoing revision by the current sitting members) we state a goal of:

    CEC 1 MISSION STATEMENT

    The District One Community Education Council’s mission is to help District One families and educators to exercise self-determination and local control over education policy and practices and to participate in decision-making at the level of family, school and community. To further this goal, we organize public meetings and hearings, provide a forum for parents to bring their concerns, and produce analyses and policy proposals which collectively serve to bridge the gap between the DOE, state and federal “rhetoric” and the reality in our district schools.

    Our key areas of focus for the 2009-2010 school year are to:

    • ensure parental involvement in school governance by supporting and strengthening meaningful participation in the district’s SLT’s, P(T)As, DLT, President’s Council and CEC by all families of elementary, middle, and high schools, including new schools and Charter Schools in the district, and
    • champion small class sizes throughout the system,
    • advocate for an equitable admissions policy for our schools that reflects the diversity within our district,
    • address space and building issues, including prioritizing the district’s needs for the Capital Plan,

    We believe that a democratically-elected body of parents and community members can best represent the interests of the families in our district, and all of our activities support this fundamental belief.

    Finally the CEC’s composition has been modified under the newest governance laws to incorporate some of the suggestions presented to the legislature by the Parents commission, or which I was a founding member.
    We had suggested, among many other changes ( see below) adding parents who represent Special Education,
    ELL, High School, 6-12s and Charter schools to each CEC.
    I am sorry to post such complex responses.
    This is complicated stuff and deserves as much thought and attention to big picture and real detials as we can muster.
    If my answers are just too much I apologize.

    Lisa

    Parent Comission On School Governance and Mayoral Control recomendations

    ( excerpt from summary)

    Ensure a more meaningful role for Community School Districts
    We envision Community School Districts together with Community District Education Councils (CDECs) to be the basic unit of local school governance, to nurture parental and community involvement; make decisions on educational priorities, zoning and enrollment; oversee schools; and facilitate improvement of teaching and learning. For this to occur, the following steps must be taken.

    • Reform the CDEC election process and composition. Every parent in the district will have a vote, with the possibility of extending this right to all registered voters. Each CDEC will consist of 11 voting members, including one Borough President appointee, 9 members elected by parents, and 1 community resident appointed by the CDEC itself. Though any community resident can run for any of these seats, at least one seat should be reserved for a high school parent; 1 seat for a parent of a child with an IEP, and 1 seat for a parent of an English Language Learner. One seat will be open (but not reserved) for a parent of a charter school student. There will be 2 non-voting high school students elected by their peers from district high schools.

    • Restore Community School Districts as meaningful entities, and reinstate the rightful responsibilities and authority of District Superintendents. In particular, Superintendents will be required to spend at least 90% of their time within their own districts, supporting and improving instruction in their schools and helping to address parental problems and concerns. In consultation with CDECs and District Presidents Councils, they will help develop the annual capital plan, the district’s class size reduction plan, the Contract for Excellence spending, and the District Comprehensive Education plan.

    • Assign high schools and 6-12 schools to their respective geographical districts to provide additional opportunity besides the Citywide Council for High Schools for high school parents to have input in policies and planning.

    • Ensure that the CDECs have the full authority under the law to approve school siting, selection, restructuring, expansion, and reconfiguration of schools, as well as the closing, opening and relocating of all traditional public and charter schools in their districts.

    • Establish a central role for CDECs in selecting and evaluating the Superintendent. The CDEC will nominate three candidates in consultation with Presidents Councils, from which the Chancellor will choose one.

    • Foster a meaningful partnership between CDECs and Community Boards. CDECs and Community boards can and should work closely together on issues related to zoning, city budgets, development and school overcrowding. CDECs should also be closely involved in developing the capital plan and be consulted and involved at every step of the process.

    Strengthen Parent Input
    As the administration has silenced the parent voice, there is a critical need to ensure more vigorous parent input at the school and citywide levels. We propose that this occur in three ways: by clarifying and strengthening the role of the School Leadership Teams, reverting to the previous process for principal selection, and creating an independent citywide parent organization, to ensure that parents have the support and skills necessary to be equal partners in decision-making.

    • Restore to School Leadership Teams the authority to develop an annual school Comprehensive Educational Plan (CEP), including identifying annual goals and objectives, and to approve a school-based budget and staffing plan aligned with the CEP.

    • Allow the members of a school-based committee of parents and staff to participate in the selection of the principal, similar to the previous C-30 process, whereby three candidates are submitted to the district superintendent for final approval. The SLT will also be responsible for performing an annual space assessment of the school, which will be made available online.

    • Establish an Independent Parent Organization (IPO) and an ancillary Independent Parent Academy, professionally staffed, authorized by the state, and with funding from the education budget. The IPO will consist of individual parents as well as school-level PAs that choose to join, and will work to strengthen the parent voice at the school, district and citywide levels.

    Improve Special Education

    • Expand the Citywide Council on Special Education (CCSE) to represent not just District 75 students and parents, but all children who receive a continuum of services mandated by an IEP (Individualized Education Program).

    • Reserve a seat for a parent of a special education student on each of the Community District Education Councils and the Citywide Council on High Schools, to serve as liaison to and provide crucial frontline input to the CCSE. As mentioned above, a seat on the Board of Education should also be set aside for such a parent, to be elected by the special education members of CDECs, the CCHS and the CCSE.

    For more information, visit http://www.parentcommission.org

50. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 1:12 pm

    Ken (and Lisa),
    Pardon the interjection:

    Re CEC Elections:
    * Held every two years in the spring, March-May.
    * “Selectors” are PTA officers, 3 per school. Think “electoral college.” Participation in D2 was circa 45% of selectors.
    * Last year, DOE ran a school-by-school “straw poll” ahead of the real vote. Predicted to be a dud. Result? A total low-turnout election-year posturing joke. Circa 4% of parents.
    * Results from last spring’s cycle HAD been available on powertotheparentsdotorg under DOE(OFEA). That site was home to the all-digital process. It is no longer up.
    * Google NYC DOE CEC and you STILL can’t find current member lists. Elections were in May. Term started July. It’s October. Not even a listing of the 32-odd CEC (plus citywide councils for Spec Ed and High Schools) offices.

    As to CECs and charters… Charters are not under the purview of CECs nor do charters vote for CEC members. I’d be open to a discussion of that getting changed.

    Ultimately, it’s one parent community, and one public school system. The rest is all artificial construct. Whether the kids get into charters on the basis of lotteries, they are increasingly likely to end up in perhaps the same building — which the CECs still have a legal say over — as if they chose to stay in the TPS (or didn’t get a winning lotto ticket).

51. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 1:18 pm

    One more analogy for Norm:

    How would the public react if we went to the “charter” model for fire department or police department services?

    “9-1-1. What is your emergency?
    Which provider have you contracted with?
    You say you weren’t happy with the TPS (traditional police service)?
    In that case, what was your lottery number?”

52. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 1:28 pm

    Lisa,
    Under the revised Mayoral Control law, I believe you would have been eligible to run again. There’s a new two year grace period for parents whose kids have “aged out.”

    All,
    I echo Lisa’s sentiments re DOE and OFEA, especially as pertain to the Chancellor sidestepping the prior law, especially when it came to undercutting the District Superintendents or the CECs.

    Which is why a number of CECs filed suits (including CEC2, see cecd2dotnet for the legal papers).

    Given this new/revised law is nearly the same, I am only guardedly optimistic they will follow it any the more, especially after election day. One indication my optimism may be misplaced: DOE says they need a year to implement some of the requirements they helped ghost write. Sheesh.

53. 

    Ken

    October 7th, 2009 1:50 pm

    Thanks Lisa, Michael, and Norm. Your comments, as is often the case, help me to understand this stuff a lot better.

    Lisa, since you are the President of the CEC, I would hope that you are focused on the most important issues with respect to the entire community. Given that, it seems a bit odd to me that you seem to be spending so much time (on this blog thread alone!) trying to limit the growth of a school with an great track record that is in great demands by parents in your community. I am honestly perplexed by that dynamic. I would love to have a conversation with you to better understand what I am missing.

    I would hope that each CEC would represent its entire community with respect to education issues. My concern is that a tiny group of people, in effect, select CEC members. Who are these people? What are their motivations? Do they really represent the entire community or are they tilted towards certain particular interests? Can anyone point me to online records of the election results so that I could better understand how this works?

54. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 2:25 pm

    Ken,
    I dare say your para above re Lisa is LOADED. Why aren’t you asking why charter zealots are importing hostility to the local CEC? Why are you giving Lisa a hassle for laying out such a thorough case, not in defense of anything, not in opposition to anything, but just to shed sunlight on process, dynamic, and fair play?

    Refering to CECs as a “tiny group of people” is also loaded. Would 32 PEP-esque pro-charter puppet panels be more to your liking?

    For the most part they (we) are parent-leader-elected representatives, and parents ourselves of kids in those district TPSs (2 of each 11 are BP-appointed), under state law whose councils provide the ONLY forum for all stakeholders in NYC schools to air things out.

    I appreciate your civility, but please. And please re-read my 1:12pm re CEC info you are requesting — and DOE masking it — and then click through the 1:28pm to the legal papers. The gist of that suit is DOE running roughshod over ANY community input, TPS OR charter, in school siting and zoning matters, which Albany CLEARLY intended originally and upon renewal to vest at the LOCAL level.

    Apologies for the heat, but your slights are unwarranted.

55. 

    David

    October 7th, 2009 2:53 pm

    > GPC also got the names of all of the enrolled students in the district in ATS and used that
    > enrollment information to send out glossy post cards recruiting kids and their parents BY
    > NAME:

    Now Lisa, you know this isn’t true. What Girl’s Prep did was what the CEC did (on your watch) which was supply the DOE mailing vendor with the mailings and have the vendor mail them to every student in the District, as is required by law. This is unlike what apparently happened with the afterschool in one of the District schools, where the law was broken as the school released the names to the afterschool

    >The question is who will need to give up what in order to make those seats available to this
    > privately managed charter that serves no ELL’s (in a district that averages over 12% ELL),
    > while 8% of their students have IEPS requiring SETTS ( in a district with the same 8%
    > average of SETTS IEPs, plus additionally 15% on average of our district elementary students
    > requiring the More Restrictive Environments of either CTT or Self Contained classes, classes
    > that Girls Prep does not offer, while in middle schools the district average is 21% of students
    > requiring CTT or self contained classrooms.
    > Will GPC take in thsoe students with IEPs requiring thsose settings if they do not offer them?

    You are using the wrong statistics here, and in the process rewarding the public schools for failing their students. The relevant statistics is the IEP percentage for entering students, not the entire student population. GP uses a reading curriculum designed for dyslexic children and does a great deal of small group and one-on-one instruction. Some (perhaps large) percentage of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. grade students at GP will thus be reading (perhaps below grade level) where they would not be had they attended a typical (i.e., 70% Title one) District school. Had they been at that District school, they would have surely been given an IEP sometime during their school career, exacerbating the difference between GP and the District schools.

    The real measure of the difference in student population is the prevalence of IEPs in entering students, not through the life of the student. If GP is cherry picking students (hard to believe since the DOE and an independent auditor both examine the GP admissions procedure, unlike DOE schools) then this statistic would tell us.

    As for the CTT classes, I asked the school administration about this and was told that when they enroll a student with an IEP calling for CTT, they mainstream the student (since the DOE has not seen fit to provide them with the extra space they would need for CTT classes) and add necessary support to ensure the student does well. I suppose that you would prefer that the student instead be labeled and stuck into a CTT class. I thought that went out in the 1970s, but I guess I’m wrong.

    You also neglect to mention that there is a District Public school that still denies that they have any CTT classes (although the DOE tells me that they finally have started one this year, after years of fighting it.)

56. 

    Ken

    October 7th, 2009 3:34 pm

    Thanks Michael,

    A few points:

    1. I really do learn from all of you about the details of what goes on in these rather arcane (for me) areas of the education world. I am not mentioning that in my comments as fluff.

    2. I think Lisa, as the President of CEC 1, has a responsibility to her community and I am genuinely confused as to how her investigation here is the best use of her time in that capacity. Lisa is more than your average commenter given her role. I think my questions are entirely appropriate.

    3. I don’t mean to defend the DOE in their role in the issues you raise. Often, and in this case, I really do not know nearly enough about the situation to comment one way or the other.

    4. A concise summary of Lisa’s investigation, by her or someone else, would be helpful. As mentioned before, I often get lost in her long, intricate comments. I am guessing that I am not alone on this.

57. 

    Ken

    October 7th, 2009 3:42 pm

    More stuff on that last one…

    As regards the CEC’s: I am not assigning blame in any of the problems in the system, i.e. this could all be the DOE’s fault, but as a New Yorker, it concerns me that a group that might be elected/selected by a very small number of people might be acting in a manner that doesn’t well represent the community it is intended to represent.

    Of course, I could be wrong, and large numbers of people might be responsible for Lisa being the President of CEC 1. Moreover, the bulk of the community represented by CEC 1 might be happy that she is putting significant efforts into getting to the bottom of the Girls Prep situation. Of course, I doubt that. Regardless, I would like to get the facts.

58. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 3:57 pm

    David,
    Re CTT only.

    IEP is NOT a stigma, though a private matter. Certainly, CTT is NOT a stigma. In my kids’ school, many parents want to be in the CTT simply for the teacher:student ratio — at least two teachers and sometimes an aide.

    You make is sound like IEP kids with CTT recommendations have leprosy and yet would be better off mainstreamed than warehoused. CTT *IS* mainstreaming.

    In the CTT classes I have seen, it’s not known or obvious which kids are the IEP kids and which are the “model students” in roughly a 50-50 ratio, in roughly 1 section of 5 or so per grade.

    Further, as I understand, not all IEP kids are good fits for CTT. And CTT can be an efficient way to provide the additional services those kids need. That being said, it would take a certain number of sections per cohort for that to make sense. Too few and you’re right, in-Gen-Ed support might do fine.

    Ken,
    If only Lisa had as much support to level the informational playing field as the pro-charter folks (subset: the space-grabbers) have support in, well, space-grabbing…

    As a parent in an overcrowded school and district (and a CEC member myself), I wouldn’t give a hoot at the district-or-below level were it not for the space issues. Parent choice? Fine.

    At a public policy re privatization level, and given Kleinberg’s biases, I’d still object, and more broadly, but for an entirely different set of reasons.

    At the district and school level, it’s about space and community — via the CEC — empowerment. See my prior comment on “rights” re the cage-fights repeatedly perpetrated by DOE. Michael Vick did hard time, and those weren’t even kids.

59. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 7th, 2009 3:59 pm

    Ken,

    I am not writing these entries to stop the growth of GPC.
    I am trying, in good faith, to answer your questions and raise some questions of my own.
    I do not say that GPC has no right to grow. I do not question the merit of their desire to expand. I only want to look at the possible lost opportunities for all of the students in the community should we choose to commit scarce resources to benefit one group at the possible cost of others.
    That is what my job should be, and gathering facts and data is a responsible part of that job.
    Your personal attacks are unwelcome and take away any trust or dignity that our civil debate had built.

    And David,
    I do not know what you mean by my watch. I was not president, but I was a member of the CEC that used all of the district families’ ATS addresses to send out a brochure listing all of the district schools and explaining clearly the choice policy and opportunities for parent involvement.
    DoE ran the list, the DoE vendor made the labels and sent out our mailing.
    We used our CEC OTPs budget to create and mail the school directory ( rather than reimburse our own out of pocket expenses) because the DoE was, as you know, completely negligent in informing parents in any meaningful or equitable manner, about our district choice policy.
    I would not compare an elected parent council’s mailing to inform parents of their admissions rights and choices to one school using public funds to mail out a promotional postcard to students enrolled in other schools in order to recruit them (and their public dollars) away.

    Also, the fact that some district schools have shirked their responsibilities to special education students does not justify a charter doing the same.
    As you know, we have asked DoE to address the same lack of equitable service of special education students at PS 184 , and this year the school is serving a class of Kindergarten CTT.
    It is my understanding that if a student has an IEP that requires either CTT or a self contained class then that is what the school must provide.
    It is not my choice to label or place that child in a more restrictive environment- it is my understanding that the IEP mandates that the student receive the service.
    Your ( I mean GPC’s) argument should be examined by the special ed experts, since I do not have any expertise in this area to evaluate your ( I mean their) claims for success.
    All I have is the number of student who are ELL or Special Ed diagnosed in each school to compare.
    And by the way- district schools are told by the DoE all the time, usually in late August, that they must open a new CTT or self contained class, without however the DoE providing the necessary room, or staff, or material, etc.
    Yet you want this same DoE that the charters are so pleased to be unfettered from to provide GPC with a room, before they will offer CTT services?
    I don’t follow your logic!

    It has been interesting but I draw the line at ad hominem attack and bad faith arguments.
    SNIP!

60. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 4:05 pm

    Ken,
    We’re lapping each other. ; - )

    Again, the important thing about CEC’s is they are the ONLY public forum where this all gets hashed out. The number of members, or even how many school selectors voted, is not as important as the transparency — more than the PEP I dare say.

    I would love it if more people voted for CEC’s. All 1.1 million kids’ parents even. The fact that it is limited to school PTA officers I see as one more way Bloomberg et al undercut the validity of the CECs.

    The CEC’s have been marginalized by the people who established them. By who is entitled to vote for CECs. By limiting the powers of the CECs. By letting Klein get away with quashing the few powers that are even on the books. And ONE of them is programmatic and space utilization approval.

    It’s not that parents do not want meaningful community forums. On this topic, it’s that the powers that be excluded charters from the umbrella of CEC overview — then excluded the CECs (illegally in my view) from a say-so re in-district new school approval and space allocation.

    Hardly fair play.

61. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 7th, 2009 4:07 pm

    Ken:

    PS We CEC memebers are all volunter parents. I do not get a dime from the DoE.
    So how I spend my time is really my personal business.
    I chose to engage with the community on this blog to explore some issues that concern my community and others.
    Your attack of me, the way I use my personal time, as a volunteer, and your questioning my support in the community on this issue strike me as suspect.

    Full disclosure please- What is your connection to Gotham Schools and the charter school industry?

    Lisa
    ( hope that was short enough for you!)

62. 

    norm

    October 7th, 2009 5:11 pm

    Ken
    Despite the air of civility, it is clear you have an ideological dog in the race as indicated by a willingness to support a balkanized school system with 1500 schools under no public management.

    Teacher unions with their pay scales are a no-no. It might make sense to the financial world but the fact that the very same system works in many successful public school systems in the affluent suburbs (and abroad) seems to escape people. Systems that have a degree of parental involvement that urban systems are denied.

    It is the same dog in the race BloomKlein have, who often intentionally mismanage the school system in a way that helps you make your points. Witness the entire convoluted CEC situation with the intentional aim to keep parent input at a minimum. Or the multiple crazy reorganizations. Do you think what looks like enormous incompetency at the DOE is just that or part of the political agenda of BloomKlein.

    I would also claim that charter chains also don’t want parental involvement in any level of management but only as a political support mechanism. I am not talking about mom and pop charters generated by the community and started by parents and teachers and run by them. Most charters begin as a force from outside the community and have no roots in the community. That is part of the basic model of separating schools from their communities. Thus you will KIPP schools all over the place and other charter chains in the same neighborhoods but no real community stake in the schools. Again, totally counter to the suburban (white) model followed outside the urban (people of color) centers.

    If there was a real attempt to meet the needs of kids in urban areas we would take a hard look at the schools deemed as failing and figure out what it would take to fix them. But if you start with the theory that the problem will exist as long as there are teachers working under a contract and some opportunities for parents to get involved in making some basic decisions, then the only solution the the market based ideologues (of which I believe you are one) is to create the “choice” argument which leads to the “close ‘em because they can’t be fixed” argument. (suburban parents have the “choice” of local schools or private schools.)

    I think may of us know how to fix the schools. Put in the kinds of resources in terms of teachers and other social services. But that has not been tried anywhere despite all the money floating around. Except maybe the Harlem Children’s Zone. How about calling for some of that stimulus money going for an experiment in drastically reducing class size and emulating HCZ in at least some schools to see if they can be fixed? That this is not on the table is a clear sign that charter schools are a political not an educational movement.

    If I hear the response that there is not money all I have to say is BEAR STERNS.

    If I hear about the ridiculous bureaucratic limits of a public school system managed by BloomKlein, I just have to laugh.

63. 

    David

    October 7th, 2009 5:18 pm

    Lisa,

    > I do not know what you mean by my watch. I was not president, but I was a member of the CEC
    > that used all of the district families’ ATS addresses to send out a brochure ….

    Sorry if I implied you were the president. I admit, you were a member of the CEC at the time.

    > I would not compare an elected parent council’s mailing to inform parents of their
    > admissions rights and choices to one school using public funds to mail out a promotional
    > postcard to students enrolled in other schools in order to recruit them (and their public dollars)
    > away.

    Perhaps, but that did not seem to be your point:

    > GPC also got the names of all of the enrolled students in the district in ATS and used that=
    > enrollment information to send out glossy post cards recruiting kids and their parents BY
    > NAME:

    Note: I was responding to “GPC also got…” which they did not. They did exactly what the CEC did and had the DOE vendor send them out. As far as the substance of education vs. promotion, I’d term what GP did as “outreach” to the community, which seems to be fine when the District public schools do it. What’s good for the goose….

    > All I have is the number of student who are ELL or Special Ed diagnosed in each school to compare.
    > have you asked for the data? (hint; there is FOIL, under which you (or the CEC) could request
    > entering student IEP and ELL data; I have requested the data to see if their assertions make sense).

    I do tend to agree with Ken that the CEC process is not particularly democratic. Parents do not elect CEC members, but rather PA/PTA members.

    Additionally, we should be clear that the CEC represents the children already in the public schools, not the children resident in the District. How do we know? Look at the eligibility criteria for parent members of the CEC (Borough President appointees don’t even need to have Children): A parent of a NEST+M child who lives on the UES is eligible (despite no District preference at NEST+M). A parent of a 2 year old who will be in District schools soon, is not eligible. A parent of a child at a District school who lives in another District and who was enroled in a District school due to a stupid DOE practice (e.g., no waitlisting of District students at their #1 choice when they get into their #3 choice) is eligible. A parent of a student at a District Charter’school, which does give District residents preference in admissions, is not eligible. None of this is the fault of the CEC, but we should remember who the CEC represents when viewing the CEC’s opinion.

    Finally, I should note that while Lisa is the president of CEC District One, her views are not necessarily those of the CEC. For the CEC to take any official action they need 6 members to vote affirmatively on that action. The CEC is subject to the Open Meetings Law, and thus any such vote would be public. It seems that the CEC has not, as a group, made a decision to support or to oppose the GP Charter Renewal application. I applaud Lisa in publicizing her views, but we should remember that they are her views, not necessarily those of at least 6 members of the CEC.

64. 

    Ken

    October 7th, 2009 5:25 pm

    Hey Lisa,

    Thanks for keeping it short(er)!

    Your role and what is appropriate for you to be doing as president of CEC 1 is an interesting area. I am open to other opinions, because I might be thinking of this incorrectly. With that said, let me tell you how I see it at the moment.

    My understanding is that the CEC represents the community in some manner. I know the powers and exact role of the CEC is controversial and, in some ways, unclear. However, my impression is that the CEC is supposed to represent the community.

    You are the president of CEC 1. On education issues, particularly ones related to public schools in your community, I question whether how you spend your time is your “personal business”. Since you are the president of CEC 1, it is also the business of your community. If a city councilmember came onto Gotham Schools, I wouldn’t view it as just his or her personal business. (To be clear, regardless of your role, you have every right to write whatever you’d like.) I would appreciate other opinions on this, because I might be thinking of this incorrectly.

    Meanwhile, as has been reported on this site multiple times, I am a supporter, financially and otherwise, of Gotham Schools, several charter schools, and a variety of other education reform organizations.

65. 

    David

    October 7th, 2009 5:27 pm

    Michael,

    > IEP is NOT a stigma, though a private matter. Certainly, CTT is NOT a stigma. In my kids’
    > school, many parents want to be in the CTT simply for the teacher:student ratio — at
    >least two teachers and sometimes an aide.

    Interesting, but this is not universally the case. At one of the District One schools a parent was recently livid upon learning that his child, again, was placed in a CTT class. He asserted that “none of the PA/PTA children or DOE employee’s kids are in the class”. I’ve filed a FOIL request to see if there is any support for his accusation; we’ll see whether we can get the data.

    As a point of comparison, GP has, at least in the lower grades, two teachers per class (although I admit, they might not have licenses)

66. 

    KitchenSink

    October 7th, 2009 5:32 pm

    @norm: Bloomklein DOES want to re-create the HCZ social services, creating two new “zones” in the So. Bronx & Central Brooklyn.

67. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 5:32 pm

    David and Ken,

    Shame on you both.

    The “air of civility” per Norm is valued, but in turn we’ve got Ken kneecapping Lisa for taking the time to write at length, and David doing the nominal public service (cough) of reminding the home audience that Lisa may not be (or may yet be) representing the official position of a CEC (which as an entity he denigrates as well) — as if any organization’s president is not usually afforded the courtesy of being presumed to speak on behalf of the organization.

    Fellas, raise your game, if not your aim. Civilly, of course. Enough shots below the belt.

    The attacks on CEC One, and its President, and Lisa the individual aren’t winning you any points in this otherwise informative string. Shoot the messenger when you can’t shoot the message?

68. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 5:51 pm

    David,

    CTT classes are in high demand at PS41. Not by ALL parents of course. By model student and IEP student parents both. My understanding is that is MORE common the case than the stigma you describe.

    CECs certainly DO have an interest in kids not yet 5. And for elementary school kids, CEC2 is on record supporting neighborhood elementary schools for neighborhood kids. (Middle schoolers more mobile, etc.) We are looking at younger kids as well, in terms of Pre-K, in terms of future teeming cohorts ready to exert pressure on class sizes, in terms of advocating for a robust capital plan that won’t even benefit many of our own kids, and in terms of making sure DOE runs admission processes better for our neighbors and broader community (in the cases you cite) than what WE were put through, etc.

    The CEC process is “not democratic?” Rullly? Compared to what? The nation’s electoral college system? Indeed, we are not directly elected, but neither is the PEP which is mute while Kleinberg steals space from under the noses of the CECs and over “democratic” will at times. At best, the votes for councilmembers by PTA officers can be thought of as a way to “norm” schools of different population sizes. OFEA makes sure we run things by the Open Meetings Law. Does that pertain to DOE? PEP? Charter siting decisions? How is charter governance any MORE democratic? You want more democratic CECs? Lift the ban on PTA officers serving on the CEC, and let ALL parents, or ALL citizens vote.

    Two teachers per Gen Ed class? Must be great in charterville.

    Should CEC One vote on GP simply based on information that backers and investors provide? Or is it ok if the President does a wee bit of due diligence. On unpaid time, of course.

69. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 6:04 pm

    Ken,
    As being a charter-backing philanthropist is indeed YOUR “personal business”, let me ask you at least to parse:
    personal information or personal financial investment?

    Given your philanthropic ability, inclinations, and biases, what proportion (I don’t need the dollars) of your giving is to TPS schools that may in fact be more financially needy or without alternative sources of funds?

    See, to me, if I had the wherewithal, I’d not call myself a “philanthropist” unless I expected nothing in return, had no “dog in the race” per above, and had an eye toward needs-based charity.

    Otherwise, I’m an “investor,” whether or not I expected a financial return, and my neutrality would be long gone.

    But I sincerely tip my hat to you, I appreciate your writing and analytic work. But there’s a lot more partisanship in it than I first realized.

70. 

    Bijou Miller

    October 7th, 2009 6:04 pm

    I have been following this thread with much interest as my District (3) is also going through similar turmoil between our public schools and charters that have been placed (I love the word “incubate”-that is better) in them. We have a situation like the one at PS 188 and GPC and I can guarantee you that there will a similar war of words about it. We got a notice from our Tweed Family Advocate yesterday(I don’t know how else to describe her- she isn’t not a DFA) yesterday stating that there will be the required hearing held by the Charter School Institute to get feedback on the renewal of one of our charter schools. Coincidentally, a member of our CEC was visiting the building that this charter resides in and the principal of the public school handed her a copy of a letter stating that the charter was trying to expand from a K-5 to a K-12. Nowhere in the hearing notice does it state that the charter is trying to change its charter to a k-12, only that they want to renew the charter. Our CEC president fired off an email to the Family Advocate asking for clarification- Why was there no mention of the change in this charter’s contract and will it be brought up at this hearing? Here is the response to our CEC president::

    ” The purpose of this hearing is to solicit feedback from the community as it relates to the renewal (renewal was italicized and underlined) of Harlem Link’s charter. If the school has decided to expand (expand also italicized and underlined) its school’s configuration, a request would need to be submitted to SUNY-CSI, the school’s authorizer. Please feel free to reach out to Ralph Rossi, SUNY-CSI, at ralph.rossi@suny.edu for additional information.

    As the school district, NYCDOE is only required to hold a public hearing once a hearing request is submitted to our office by the authorizer. As of today, I have not received any correspondence from SUNY-CSI requesting that a charter revision hearing be held in the district.

    Let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.”

    So the DOE person doesn’t seem to know that the charter is also trying to expand. Do I believe her? Not really. It seems odd that a public school principal would get this expansion letter and the DOE would not. At any rate, my point is that I see a trend here-Because of an aggressive influx of charter schools placed in the upper part of our District, the DOE stated that they would put no more new charters into the district but of course, that does not prevent them from letting the existing charters expand, which will ultimately crowd out their public school partners. I don’t have a solution. I am so appreciative of this dialogue and the thoughts that have been expressed here. Yes, there are great charter schools and yes, there are some really bad charter schools, just like there are great and bad publics- but, (and the question has been asked here), why is the DOE turning its back on the publics? Because they are- they tried to close several schools last year to enable charters to take over the spaces and we filed a lawsuit so that the DOE backed off but they continue to hover like hungry hyenas over a dead carcas- just waiting for these schools to fail- they let the charters woo the kids from the publics and they don’t give them any support. To me it is just criminal. GPC may be the best school in NYC but if it success imperils the public school it shares space with, then that is not okay- End of story. The DOE should be supporting the schools that are under its umbrella- A lot of these charters not only have the support of SUNY but they have the DOE cheering them on. What is fair and equitable about that? Bijou Miller

71. 

    Ken

    October 7th, 2009 6:05 pm

    Hey Michael,

    My intention is not to attack, kneecap, or hit below the belt. I apologize if it came across that way.

    Lisa can and will write at whatever length she likes, but it can be quite difficult to follow for me and, I would guess, many others. If you review the thread and don’t relate to my comment in this regard, we might have to agree to disagree.

    Separately, I think it is great that the President of CEC One is involved in this GS conversation. However, I think her position as President is quite relevant. I am truly interested in learning how she deals with issues like this one given her position. Many people (probably most people) and certainly I don’t have a clear idea as to how the CEC’s are actually functioning and how they are approaching issues like this one. I am particularly interested since it seems that CEC’s want much more power with respect to our public schools.

72. 

    Ken

    October 7th, 2009 6:15 pm

    Hey Michael,

    On your last comment, I really enjoy your writing too. I appreciate when you suggest that I have crossed a line or that I am sounding excessively one-sided, because there is very possibly some truth in those statements and I am always trying to improve. In many of my posts, I have tried to write in an “opinion free” style. In others, and in most of my comments, I let my opinions come through. I think I usually know the difference between “fact” and “opinion” (not always!) and I hope you will enjoy the facts that I research even if my opinions are sometimes annoying.

73. 

    norm

    October 7th, 2009 6:17 pm

    Note how the political/ideological agendas underlying the charter school movement as being based on an anti-union, anti-parent involvement and a breaking of local community involvement in neighborhood schools are never addressed by kitchen sink or Ken. Or the underlying (often racial element) of the urban/suburban gap - who gets to control their schools.

    The idea is KISS. Sweep these issues under the rug and make it about the so-called quality of schools when the elephant in the room is that the ideologues basically believe it is the teachers/union/contract fault when public schools fail.

    It should be pointed out that the progressive teachers I work with are severe critics of the UFT on a number of grounds. I have been for 40 years, naturally not for the same reasons as the right wing.

    As to expanding HCZ, Kitchen sink misses the point (intentionally?) I am talking about the total package of HCZ for public schools under public management, not expanding the HCZ privately controlled franchise. If people think that model works then why not? I’ll tell you why. There are union teachers in public schools and the ideologues will snicker that it just won’t work. The real reason it won’t work is that with BloomKlein in charge the program would be totally mismanaged. One more reason to have public schools run in a democratic fashion instead of a fascistically (is that a word?)

74. 

    norm

    October 7th, 2009 6:29 pm

    Talking about girls. I once had a 6th grade class with 18 girls and 6 boys. Easiest teaching year of my life. The boys love being in a sea of girls and rarely acted out.

    Let me say that I am in favor of some separation starting in the upper elementary grades. I and another teacher even had a grant to do gender gap science with 6th grade girls that ultimately led us to win a national engineering contest sponsored by the company that made erector sets. When we once let some boys into the room things fell apart.

    My point is that I can appreciate a school like Girls Prep. But to talk about what a great school it is (and I believe it) we also have to consider that there have been law suits over the fact that the overwhelming bulk of kids who end up in special ed have been boys. Let’s say Girls Prep expands exponentially and we end up with a dual school system. Girls in charter and boys in the public schools (I am pushing a bit here) the public schools can end up with the same boy/girl ratio as China.

    By the way, this thread could become a book. Or an encyclopedia.

75. 

    Ken

    October 7th, 2009 6:39 pm

    Hey Norm,

    One more comment for the book!

    I usually don’t address some of your more general statements because I feel these threads are prone to heading off on tangents.

    For the record, though, I am not anti-union, anti-parent, or anti-local-community-involvement. I do believe that the UFT contract is a disaster, that the most efficient forms of parental control start with parental choice, and that local community involvement should come from the local community and not special interest groups that pretend to represent them.

76. 

    David

    October 7th, 2009 7:16 pm

    Norm,

    Actually my understanding is that the reason the umbrella organization of Girl’s Prep has become “Public Prep” is that they hope to expand the model to boys schools.

77. 

    David

    October 7th, 2009 7:41 pm

    Michael,

    > You want more democratic CECs? Lift the ban on PTA officers serving on the CEC,
    >and let ALL parents, or ALL citizens vote.

    I agree about the All parents or all citizens vote. As for the ban on PTA officers, I disagree; if can’t find enough parents to staff both the CECs and the PA/PTAs. then what does that say about the desire for “parent involvement” in the district?

78. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 7th, 2009 7:44 pm

    hey Ken and David ,
    Because I am a member or President of a CEC does not mean I can not be a citizen with an opinion.
    Did I sign my posts as CEC president? Did I claim to represent the CEC in my posts?
    If I gave the impression I was speaking for the CEC then I made mistake and hope you will show me where in my long complicated posts I did so.

    Did I take an anti charter position at any time?
    Did I say I am against Girls Prep expanding?

    Or did I say the issue is not whether or not this school should grow but the issue is who will have to give up what to accommodate that wish.
    I have tried to focuss this discussion on the children served and the process by which the CEC is to respond to the request for space under the newest structures and laws. These have been my questions and probes.

    I have also taken some of the posters responses and their logic and pushed them a little farther to see how well they hold water.
    Ms Raccah the Executive Director of the Girls Prep, for instance, stated that parents who are tax payers get to decide what happens in the public schools. I simply asked about the many many instances where tax paying parents in NYC have had no say since the arrival of mayoral control over anything that happens in the public schools. I cited several oversubscribed schools that were granted legal rights to expand but were given no space to do so by the DoE.

    I do not defend the current governance structure nor do I claim it is democratic. In fact I spent a lot of time ( volunteering) to try to change it over the last year and a half.
    The work of the Parent Commission was thoughtful and deserves your scrutiny.

    Finally, try to find another CEC that mentions charter parents in its mission statement. Find another CEC president who has attended or hosted charter hearings in order to invite Charter parents to be represented on CECs and Presidents councils.

    So I double dog dare you- show us where I claimed to represent the CEC.
    Show us where I came out against charters or Girls Prep.
    The only charge I cop to is writing long and complex pieces that refer to a whole lot of arcane DoE knowledge garnered over years volunteering as an elected parent ( PTA Treasurer- 5 years, PTA VP, PTA President, member of my DLT and liaison to the District One Presidents Council).
    Guilty, guilty, guilty. Lisa

79. 

    Michael M.

    October 7th, 2009 9:32 pm

    David,
    Where is all this cynicism and bitterness coming from? About DOE I can understand, but about parents? Are you not a parent? Are you not fighting for the best for your kid(s)? Why would you suggest other parents are not?

    And why do I say the above? Your last jab at parents, especially those who would take on PTA and/or CEC duties. It is so stunning, I won’t even parse it. This on top of an afternoon of potshots at CECs and Lisa Donlan in particular, and barbs I’ve never heard before about CTT classes, IEP kids, and again, more on CEC’s.

    Now I’m curious as to what’s your beef. Care to share? The doctor is in.

80. 

    David

    October 7th, 2009 11:29 pm

    Michael,

    Why not parse my last comment–it’s very simple; I don’t understand the desire to allow a single person to have both rolls; The division of roles (and the spreading of power) is key to many administrative and government functions. If there is a desire for parent involvement, a slate of PA/PTA and CEC people should be easy to fill. If there is widespread apathy, allowing a few people to concentrate power by holding multiple positions would just allow them to impose their will on the masses. If there aren’t enough parents to fill school and CEC roles, then the solution is to increase parent involvement, not allow the same group of people to take on more roles.

    As for my position, I’m a GP parent who resides in the District, and who does not agree with the emphasis on protecting current students at the expense of District residents. As a bit of background, District One is a District of choice, where there are no zoned schools, and parents bid for the schools for their child to attend. Schools are desirable for a variety of reasons (culture, test scores, locations, educational philosophy, extracurriculars) and some schools are oversubscribed, leading to lotteries for slots at those schools. The scramble for slots is exacerbated by sibling priority, where up to 66% (in the case of one District school) of slots are already taken by the siblings of existing students, some District residents and some residents of other Districts. The CEC has, not surprisingly given that it represents parents of current students not District parents, consistently argued for the preference of out-of-district siblings over other district residents. I understand this, but disagree (hence my view that the CEC should represent the parents of the District).

    I’ve also heard (in person) current CEC members make statements to the effect that they don’t care if students were admitted using fraud (fraudulent addresses or siblings), once the students are in the system the CEC represents the interests of those students and parents, apparently over the interest of other District resident students. This I don’t understand. If the parents of a student fraudulently stole a spot at a District school, then the rightful recipient of that spot should get it.

81. 

    Leonie Haimson

    October 8th, 2009 9:02 am

    Ken, I’m certain that Lisa has a lot more support and respect in her community than Joel Klein has among public school parents or even New Yorkers in general. Moreover, who selected Klein for his position, aside from one very wealthy billionaire who bought his way into office in the first place, and overturned term limits so he could buy his way into a third. Lisa has done incredible work for the district, for no pay, as opposed to some of the charter school administrators you support who make over $300,000 per year, partly on the backs of our tax dollars. And she is right that the charter school data is less transparent than for regular public schools. Where is the class size data for charter schools? Where is their student attrition and discharge data? Where is the per pupil spending? The DOE obscures this latter info for charter schools as much as possible, so much so that in response to questions from a member of the PEP they wrote, that some people say that city spending on charter school students is more than for regular public school students, some people say that it is less; and they are both wrong. The IBO has been working on a cost comparison for over a year and still hasn’t been able to untangle this mess.

82. 

    Cora

    October 8th, 2009 9:11 am

    Out-of-district siblings are a simply matter of practicality for the whole family, how can anyone argue for the whole child and leave behind the whole family and the stress of different pick-up times in different schools or even districts? That would be stress for every child right there made by politics. Single child parents don’t understand that (some do), they usually never put themselves into the shoes of a family of more children. To be in your school of choice versus keeping a family school routine manageable (besides PARENTINVOLVEMENT chances, how about that in different districts at the same time?) I daresay pick the latter. Especially since I care about parent involvement, there is never enough at the school level, even at the schools that seem to model that.
    Diversity is key also.
    To create a middleschool for an existing Elementary school population with 50 % out-of-district without asking the parents in the area is very questionable for me. As a mother of a boy middleschooler and a girl elementary student I was never asked about my estimation of needs for a single-sex school. There are more successful elementary schools in district 1 that would be great in creating a middleschool for their children but as ‘regular’ public schools they have no chance, was tried before and failed with lots of efforts in vain.
    As a charterschool it seems: all is possible.
    Don’t ask, pretend you got permission before to go ahead and then just go ahead by taking up space from another school (not really asking anyway) and serving 50% out-of-district.
    Looks like there is a catch for somebody, why do it otherwise?
    We (the ‘regular’) public school elementary parents depend on the middleschool choices we have in the district and there is always room for improvement but also great choices out there.
    And then going after the most dedicated person for equality and public school students in general we have in district 1 and then questioning her motives? How dare you! Shame on you. I am a parent volunteer since 5 years, having served in various positions at CPAC (Chancellor’s parent advisory council) President’s Council (as president) and my local school PA as president for almost three years and NEVER did anyone dare to question my motives besides myself, since it take s so much time away from your family and the reward is ? Everybody was supportive of my efforts and information spread is key here!
    To make the CEC look like this ideal powerful institution is way off the actual reality. But to use contact info for a mailing because the chancellor allows you to and then telling the CEC they are misusing their power is just wrongdoing!!
    Now I became am a CEC member because of Lisa! Her dedication is so inspiring and her knowledge goes beyond anybody’s I have met at DOE (and I met the chancellor on a regular basis). This discussion should be about the equality we need and how to get there.
    A charterschool run lose doesn’t do it for me. If the parents of the district (now in elementary school) favor a new single-sex choice for middleschool. let’s do it, if not… But they need to know about ALL the choices they have before they can make that decision. Outreach was never a strength of the DOE, especially not in district 1 with the choice policy. There is a lot of work ahead of us if we mean it.
    Is your dedication real?
    Then let’s do it. (maybe with your money and our dedication?)

83. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 8th, 2009 9:30 am

    Cora makes a number of excellent points, but I want to pick up on her message about DoE outreach.
    The CEC had to use its member reimbursable budget to create a school directory because parents were wrongly and routinely told they were zoned for schools with no zoning by the DoE!
    To compare the CEC doing outreach to district families to provide information on all the schools and admission policies with a glossy post card promoting one school is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
    One is information that public school parents had a right to receive, (and one the DoE had an obligation to provide, but failed) and was provided by the CEC with the full support of the district and regional superintendents and Enrollment office, The other is a marketing tool designed to pull kids out of one school and into another.
    Does anyone else have trouble seeing this clearly?

    Please weigh in if you think that a glossy postcard from a charter to enrolled students and their parents is OUTREACH or direct marketing.

84. 

    Jennifer

    October 8th, 2009 10:57 am

    Ken, I do not find Lisa’s comments confusing. If several worthy schools in a district want to expand, what is the process for deciding how scarce space will be allocated? What are the criteria? What do you think the process and criteria should be for those several schools?

85. 

    Michael M.

    October 8th, 2009 1:04 pm

    David,
    Your familiarity with CEC and policy nuance, juxtaposed with your continued personal axe-grinding about CEC’s is puzzling, but need not be resolved in public.

    Perhaps best if we swapped emails. Mine is witzerooATyahooDOTcom.

    Enough with the public spiked tea party if you don’t want to put all your cards on the table.

    I respect that choice given the public forum, but it’s not fair to the topic, the debate, the PTA’s, the CEC’s, parents of kids regardless of home address, or Lisa Donlan on either a personal or CEC Preznit level.

86. 

    Ken

    October 8th, 2009 1:05 pm

    Hey Leonie,

    As usual, we agree that school finances in general are too opaque. You and I and others should continue to push for more transparency on this issue.

    I think charter school spending is much more transparent than traditional public school spending. Do you disagree? Do you know of anything even close to the financial detail of an annual charter school audit for a traditional public school? (To be clear, I had to FOIL SUNY and SED to get copies of these audits!) Do you know of a comparable report for, say, PS 188? Let’s try to get some consensus on this issue.

    On non-financial matters, which reports for traditional public schools are missing for charter schools? I am not saying that they don’t exist, but I would like to focus on particulars. Can you pick one that provides the best example? Maybe we can get some agreement on this too.

    On the flip side, can you tell me which TPS reports match, for example, SUNY charter school reviews that are available on the SUNY website? For example, here is a recent Girls Prep report: http://www.newyorkcharters.org/documents/GirlsPrepCharterSchool-3rdYearInspectionReport-FINAL2%2027%2009.pdf. Where can I find a comparable report for PS 188? Again, I’m not saying that they don’t exist, but I would like to learn where I can find them. Be careful not to refer me to reports that also exist for charter schools, like the large number of progress-related reports that people on GS usually insult.

87. 

    Ken

    October 8th, 2009 1:29 pm

    Hey Jennifer,

    I’m glad you don’t find Lisa’s comments confusing!

    Your questions are great ones. If we assume that public school space in NYC is a scarce resource and that that space will be allocated free of charge to one of several school operators, I would hope that the goal would be to give the space to the school operators that have some combination of the greatest parental demand and the most promising plan for success in educating children. Of course, “the most promising plan for success” requires significant judgment and raises the question of who makes that judgment! Parental demand is probably easier to measure through enrollment figures and lottery results. Also, there are frictional costs of changing operators and school configurations, so any change should be judged to have benefits that outweigh those frictional costs.

    In a situation in which one school operator is in tremendous demand by parents and seems to have a fantastic track record, it seems like a good idea for the system to try to find space for them. The other side of the equation is very important, too, i.e. who, if anyone, is being displaced? I hope that Lisa and others continue to study both sides of this issue to help us to arrive at the best set of educational opportunities possible.

88. 

    Leonie Haimson

    October 8th, 2009 2:03 pm

    Ken: I dont know what info is in the audits since I havent seen them. Do they contain comprehensive info on how much is spent per student at the school level; as well as the value of the other subsidies provided by DOE, including food, transportation, energy, testing, recruiting, etc.? If so, I’d love to see it.

    As I wrote in my previous comment, there is no detailed school level class size reporting for charter schools that I know of as there is for regular public schools; you can see the regular class size reports on the DOE website if you look up “class size”. There is some charter school class size data available from SED, but it is spotty at best. The report you shared from SUNY is like a quality review. I dont know how to assess its accuracy or helpfulness, as I dont know with the quality reviews either. There is also a huge issue of equity here. The DOE promotes the success of charter schools at every instance; helps them recruit students, encourages their private fundraising, and allows them to cap class size and enrollment at any level they prefer. Meanwhile, they refuse to reduce class size in our regular public schools, despite state law requiring them to do so. The mayor says he wants to provide 100,000 new seats for charter schools, yet is creating only 25,000 new seats over the next five years for our regular public schools. Is this fair or equitable? I think not. You think competition will lift all boats. I see a two-tier system developing , one with all the advantages and the other with none– including an administration that doesnt give a damn if a regular public school fails. In fact, they prefer it because it gives them more space for charter school students!

89. 

    KitchenSink

    October 8th, 2009 2:26 pm

    One correction, Leonie: the chancellor doesn’t allow charters to cap class size, etc., but the NYS Charter Schools Act of 1998 does.

    For all the issues and fears associated with decentralization and “1500 self-governed schools,” many of those legitimate and which I share, the charter law allows charter schools to follow their roadmaps laid out in the charter. Very, very few mandates from above, once the basics are agreed to in the charter document.

    Those of us who have left the system because we’re tired of broken promises or broken windows and joined the charter movement have done so because this flexibility (to use Ken’s word) allows us to be more effective at serving kids. It’s not “us vs. them,” or a two-tiered system. It’s just, in my experience, a way for professionals to deliver educational services to kids and families with fewer barriers getting in the way. There are charters with 30 or 35 kids in a class, charters with upwards of 45% IEP students, 70% foster care students. These are design elements, and the school board is free to propose whatever it thinks it needs to do to get the agreed upon outcomes. And then empowered to stick to those design elements.

    If I were the chancellor (and my spouse, my family and probably all of New York City all are thankful that I am not whether they know it or not), I would want to divest myself of as much responsibility as possible, spinning off students to charter schools that I could hold accountable by pushing that red “non-renewal” button. 1.1 million kids = inevitable trade-offs. Separate charter agreements = schools that will go out and find the resources they need when they are not available through the system.

90. 

    KitchenSink

    October 8th, 2009 2:31 pm

    Ken you raise a really interesting and important question about governance: How can the public, or those trusted with serving the public’s interests, judge which schools are worthy of scarce resources?

    Just remember that high demand doesn’t necessarily indicate high quality. People can be sheep, whether they are going after living in the zone for the “fashionable” Upper East Side district pubilc school of the moment, or following the buzz about a new charter school.

    I don’t have any answers, but I do think the chancellor is moving in the right direction with these report cards. Obviously when 98% get A’s or B’s something is amiss and the nuance is lost, but the general idea should be to make performance data more transparent and accessbile - or at least, the focal point of public debate. I think the report cards for all their flaws have succeeded in moving the needle on that scale.

91. 

    KitchenSink

    October 8th, 2009 2:33 pm

    @Lisa: Direct marketing. (But I don’t see anything wrong with it - provided the DOE is doing what it’s supposed to be doing vis a vis disseminating information about the district schools)

92. 

    Bijou Miller

    October 8th, 2009 3:03 pm

    Hi, Kitchensink, Well, from where I sit, the DOE is NOT doing what it’s supposed to be doing vis a vis disseminating info about my district schools. In fact in some instances, they appear to be corrupting the info that goes out. We have one elementary school that was told that they would have to either increase enrollment or lose space to a charter school. But when the DOE put out a list of district schools that had openings, they listed this particular school at capacity with no seats available. Yet another example of DOE incompetence? I think not. Additionally when parents asked John White that the playing field be leveled so that public schools could get support to send out flyers to their areas, he agreed but as far as I know that support never materialized and when there was a school fair, the public schools that participated were given tables in the back of the gym and the charters were right up front.

    By the way, I posted yesterday that a certain charter in my district had applied to become a K-12 but the hearing to extend their charter did not include this info. The principal of that charter emailed me and told me that this was a mistake and that they have not applied to become a k-12. He was calling the Charter Institute to tell them to correct this. I am glad that this is the case as the school is a very good school and the principal is very eager to get along and work with his public school partners. (Unllike another charter school operator in my District that I could name but won’t)

93. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 8th, 2009 3:04 pm

    Kitchen Sink, I think I like you more and more! You have no problem laying it out as you see it, PC or not, damn the torpedos.
    I like that.
    But what is with the pseudonym?

    come out, come out, whoever you are!

94. 

    Lisa Donlan

    October 8th, 2009 3:18 pm

    Ken,
    I did post my email once earlier so you could contact me for the details and explanations you crave.
    I could send you the charts I have pasted in that got so jumbled in this blog format, (no doubt confusing you further) and answer any queries you may have.
    Those of us in the front lines bring a lot of details and real life consequences that the constructs you big players do not live with or necessarily even see.

    We are in the weeds but can see the patterns, too. It is just that the patterns read very differently down here. This is why folks should declare up front what kind of skin they have in the deal; we readers can’t read the text properly without the decoder ring!

    lisabdonlan@hotmail.com

95. 

    Ken

    October 8th, 2009 4:19 pm

    Thanks Lisa.

    I look forward to communicating with you offline!

96. 

    Ken

    October 8th, 2009 4:32 pm

    Hey KitchenSink,

    I don’t have the answers either. It is a very tough problem.

    I agree that it is possible that some or many parents make poor decisions. Of course, one must question whether they will make better or worse decisions than government officials over time, especially considering the risk of regulatory capture of government officials by special interest groups. I might be comfortable with Bloomberg and Klein affecting the options and decisions, but others might find that comfort laughable. What happens if and when the anti-charter people get a mayor they like? I will probably be quite uncomfortable with that mayor influencing choices. In general, no one cares as much about a particular child as the child’s parents. That gives parental choice a huge head start over government choice.

    I agree, though, there is no easy answer.

97. 

    Khem

    October 8th, 2009 5:35 pm

    I would like to suggest a parent-to-parent meeting with the Girls Prep Parents because they don’t understrand their governance and their charter.

    They just want more space for their children and the organization is using them to ask for it and parents are fighting unnecessarily.

    Charter School parents must understand what they are getting into when they choose charter as their school of choice.

    I would love to partner with you to have this conversation with them but they have to be willing to hear objectively.

    Their charter is authorized to serve K-4 or K-5. They have to plan for their children’s futures. This is why they cannot completely
    remove themselves from caring about the plight of the neighborhood public schools and work to ensure quality education no matter
    where they choose it. They must always be a part of the process. They also cannot be selfish in trying to take space from
    the existing school children.

    This charter school issue can only be solved with the parents, board of regents, supts, President’s Councils and CECs. More parent talk,
    less TWEED influence.

    Let’s work with GEM to reach out to this parent population.

    Feel free to forward my comment.

    Khem Irby
    CEC13

98. 

    Full Disclosure

    October 9th, 2009 9:01 am

    I saw you wanted to see just who has a dog in ther fight.
    David has a few dogs in the fight.
    He tried very hard to win a seat for his child in the same PS 184 that he is now complaining does not serve special education students. It had more applications then they can fit.
    Many kids are not form the district.
    David made himself very active in the local admissions policy advocacy, getting real cozy with all of the big names in DoE and politicians and digging up dirt on schools.
    When the daughter got in to a different school then the one he wanted he signed her up to Girls Prep. That way she still can maybe transfer in to PS 184 from the wait list, since students normally can’t transfer from one district school to another (no stealing students). David was on the CEC in District One when he was parent of a district school student. Now he had to resign since he is a charter parent.
    There is a rumor he is blackmailing DoE to get his spot in the school.

99. 

    Cora

    October 9th, 2009 12:37 pm

    Lisa:
    This is unbelievable but looking back it makes sense somehow, I guess. David should better NEVER try to return to the CEC then.

    Ken:
    regarding the pro vs contra charter school issue. It should not be political but is and that is very sad. Information is political, sadly. The way charter schools are being ‘distributed’ into school buildings is due to a lack of space in general and due to a willingness to profit on education. These are all political and even economical motifs (how else is it possible that a charter school director/ manager/ you-name-it can give him/herself a salary of $300.000 or more?).
    I want good education I so chose in my neighborhood for my children and that same choice for all children and also all other neighborhoods everywhere and that does not seem political at all to me. To me as a parent the differences on how to make that happen through a charter school or a ‘regular’ public school only complicates everything and adds to the confusion you already have as a parent altogether. I am a happy parent at two great and successful ‘regular’ public schools and all that comes down from the DOE does not help them to get better does puts little mini-surveys on a daily basis and other rocks into their way and the principals away from the children and in front of the computer all the time. Data collecting mania vs educational support? It is very hard to measure the real success of any educational institution but it should not be hard to be transparent about it’s finances and decision making processes. And it is not hard to find out what ‘the people’ in a neighborhood want, except that in order to make an educated choice it all comes down to INFORMATION… (you may now start over at the point it says Ken:…)

100. 

     Ken

     October 9th, 2009 1:29 pm

     Thanks Cora,

     If there is one theme in which I think most GS readers agree, it is that the public should have access to as much information as possible in order to improve our ability to make educated choices and, separately, to improve oversight over public institutions by private citizens. Although I am supporter of Bloomberg and Klein, I wish they did a better job in making all information available to the public (that wouldn’t compromise the privacy of a private citizen).

101. 

     Leonie Haimson

     October 9th, 2009 1:46 pm

     Kitchen Sink: the charter granted a charter school when it is created may allow the founders of the school to cap class size and enrollment at any level they like; but it is DOE and Joel Klein who give these schools precious space in DOE buildings, free of charge, and thereby diminishes the opportunities to learn for the regular public school students under his charge, that the Chancellor is supposed to be responsible for enhancing and protecting. Any educational administrator who fails to do this — as Joel Klein does, every day — should quit or be fired.

102. 

     KitchenSink

     October 9th, 2009 2:08 pm

     And if the Chancellor didn’t provide that space to those charters…where would those kids go when the charters go under (like ReadNet Charter School, which closed two years ago because the college that promised them space backed out)? Back into the district buildings, of course. Wouldn’t they still be negatively impacting the instruction of their peers if they were in the same building under PS “A” instead of “XYZ” Charter School?

     We all agree the DOE and the state need to put in more capital $$ to finance school construction. It is not keeping pace with demographic shifts. But don’t blame the charters for that phenomenon.

103. 

     norm

     October 9th, 2009 2:38 pm

     So if charter school operators take advantage of a politicized DOE that ties the hands of public schools while favoring charters so they can suck space out of public schools, especially the charter franchises which invade a community, they should not be held responsible? Or we should not look at the way they operate in concert with BloomKlein, who have purposely put in principals in target public schools who there to make the sure there is no figthtback from parents and teachers? And when people do fight for their public schools they come under attack as being anti-charter. If you play in the political mine field than you can’t just expect to not come under scrutiny.

     And that is the point many of us have been making. Charters are a political wedge to destroy community based public schools, parental involvement and teacher unions and their educational mission is secondary.

104. 

     Michael M.

     October 9th, 2009 4:39 pm

     KS,
     I see your point ONLY at the level of… it’s 1.1 million kids either way.

     At any level more granular than that, well, er, nah.

105. 

     KitchenSink

     October 12th, 2009 9:12 am

     Norm, I can’t speak for the motives of everyone involved in the charter movement, and I will say having visited charters around the nation that this movement is as diverse as anything I’ve ever seen, but I can say that there are hundreds if not at this point thousands of educators working at charter schools in NYC who are sick and tired of things staying the way they are. And kids and families being screwed left and right by a system that is too big and too unresponsive.

     Political wedge? I’ll react in my personal way to each of your supposed targets:

     1) Community-based public schools: In my vision of charter schools, they are community-based public schools. But when they act badly, they need to go. So I think I would agree that charters target those community-based public schools that are BADLY RUN, failing or dangerous. As a group, I don’t see what anyone in the charter movement gains by purposely balkanizing school zones.

     2) Parental involvement: Ask any charter educator about the protests in Brooklyn and Harlem against charters by district public school parents and you’re likely to hear something like the following: “I wonder what lies these parents were told to get them so animated against charters, but it’s refreshing to see so many parents out and fighting for a cause.” Yes, refreshing! Step into a charter school and talk to a parent, and you’ll see that on balance, charters create engagement opportunities for parents. They actually empower parents. And if you were to visit a charter, any charter at random, there will probably be several parents around. Because such a school’s very existence is dependent on clearly providing a worthy service to parents and keeping open communication with them, it’s in a charter school’s best interest to be inviting to parents.

     3) Teacher unions: I’m like many other educators who have left the system who are very thankful to the UFT for the work rule, salary and benefit fights over the year that allowed me to enter the profession, start to pay off loans and make a living wage in New York City. Now, as an administrator, I’m thankful for the framework provided by the UFT to help guide our salary and benefit negotiations and plans with teachers. I’m not interested in destroying the teachers’ union (though I would probably agree that others in the charter movement are), but the UFT has become the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and with 100,000 or so members it now has as many problems as the chancellor trying to please all constituents. It’s too big to work. What is the UFT fighting for right now? Freedom from abusive administrators? Not an issue at a charter school - where you can leave of your own free will! And if you’re a high quality teacher, you’ll find a job at a charter school that wants you!

     As for those who would like to see it go away (and use charters to do so), I’m certain that they fundamentally believe that the weakening of the UFT would be for the betterment of the system and the schoolchildren. They see the union protecting the jobs of underperforming teachers who have no business being in front of children all day, every day, on the taxpayer’s dime. Maybe that’s naive, and I certainly don’t think it’s that simple, and the ends don’t justify those means, but the ends are in the right place.

     Educational mission is secondary? That may be a pat throw-away comment by you, but it’s horribly offensive to the majority of charter school educators in this city, who get up every day and fight the same fight UFT members do, putting all of their heart and soul into raising achievement and protecting some of our most vulnerable and struggling kids.

106. 

     KitchenSink

     October 12th, 2009 9:14 am

     @Michael M., what exactly do you mean by granular? Are you talking about the re-shuffling of charter schools and the disruption to district schools that goes along with it?

     School space is a zero sum game. Unless you add seats, if more kids come, the buildings will be overcrowded. That part of it is very simple. What part of my argument are you trying to counter?

107. 

     Ken

     October 12th, 2009 9:28 am

     Leonie,

     You write: “… it is DOE and Joel Klein who give these schools precious space in DOE buildings, free of charge, and thereby diminishes the opportunities to learn for the regular public school students under his charge, that the Chancellor is supposed to be responsible for enhancing and protecting.”

     I don’t get it. (I know, I know… as usual.) Isn’t the DOE and Klein responsible for all of the students in the system, not just the ones at traditional public schools? Don’t all of the students in the system get educated in schools that receive space “free of charge” (except for many charter schools that have to pay for their own non-DOE space)?

108. 

     NYC Educator

     October 12th, 2009 1:04 pm

     I’m kind of surprised you don’t get it, Ken. I’m not a business person, but lately I’ve been watching Gordon Ramsay on this show called “Kitchen Nightmares.” One of the things Gordon says is you don’t expand until things run perfectly in your first place. So if neighborhood schools are overcrowded, falling apart, with hundreds, perhaps thousands of oversized classes, perhaps it would be sensible to get them in order before opening new places.

     On the other hand, you can always ignore them until they inevitably fail. As far as I can tell, that’s standard procedure for this administration, no matter how good (or bad) neighborhood schools may be. That policy makes little sense to me, and I don’t see how it ultimately helps anyone, teachers, parents, kids, or even the Bloomberg administration.

     In fact, I read somewhere Gordon has been neglecting his flagship restaurants while running around making TV shows, and that hasn’t worked well for him either.

109. 

     David

     October 12th, 2009 4:43 pm

     Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this–had some work to do.

     plus, I was busy adding “blackmailer” to my resume. LOL.

     Back to reality.

     It seems we’ve got a great discussion going, and seem to have touched on many of the important issues of the Charter debate. It seems that a lot of the arguments, in both directions, can be answered with the phrase “it’s not as simple as that”. In that spirit I wanted to interject in relation to something that NYC Educator said:

     >One of the things Gordon says is you don’t expand until
     >things run perfectly in your first place. So if
     >neighborhood schools are overcrowded, falling
     >apart, with hundreds, perhaps thousands of oversized
     >classes, perhaps it would be sensible to get them in
     >order before opening new places.

     If Gordon doesn’t expand his restaurant and I can’t get a reservation, I go to another one or eat at home. If a child can’t get into a good District school, what’s their alternative? Also, do we think this is ever going to happen? Have the NYC schools ever been run consistently well?

     Bear with me for a second here while we look at District numbers:

     The District in question, District One, does have some really good schools, and this results in high demand for slots in those schools. The problem is twofold; First, there are not enough slots in those schools to accommodate the non-sibling District applicants (see below), and (2) the way the DOE runs District admissions, for almost all of these schools only students who rank the schools #1 (and perhaps students who match to no schools during the initial process) have a shot at being admitted. So how big a problem is this in the District? So how many kids are we talking about?

     I did a quick test (writing this reply took more time than the excel work). I looked only at District schools that we might define as “good”. Having no agreed upon metric, I made one up. I recall that 70% was passing in most of my schooling, so I filtered our schools for those who could manage to get 70% of their English Proficient Students to a 3 or 4 on the ELA test in 2008. This resulted in the schools below, with the accompanying admissions statistics I had already FOILed some months ago (note; I’ve adjusted the admissions statistics by removing all siblings from both applicants and slots, since we are discussing non-sibling applicants). Applicants are only those who ranked the school #1.

     Non-sibling applicants (#1 rank) non-sibling slots
     01M20 (Anna Silver) 56 54
     01M64 (Robert Simon) 18 25
     01M110 (Florence Nightingale) 64 34
     01M184 (Shuang Wen) 100 27
     01M315 (East Village Community) 28 21
     01M363 (Neighbourhood School) 41 30
     01M364 (Earth School) 109 52

     Note that I’ve removed NEST+M since they admit through the city-wide G&T test with no preference for District One students, as well as one school without a Kindergarten (01M839). Also this list may slightly overestimate the odds of admission to Shuang Wen for most applicants since the DOE had already announced the formation of a CTT class at Shuang Wen before applications were due, and since a CTT class has a minimum and maximum percentage of mandated (IEP) students, it is unclear if the DOE did a true random lottery for all slots or specifically selected children with IEPs for some CTT slots separately (I’m trying to determine this now).

     If we look at the totals, we find that 416 non-sibling children applied to these schools as first preference, and that 236 of those children were accommodated in their first choice (this total includes only 18 of the 01M64 applicants). Thus ~43% of the applicants did not get their first choice schools. Worse, as I explained above, since all but one of these schools filled their class from the list of those ranking it #1, the best that any of these students who did not match their first choice could hope for is a waitlist slot at their first choice (a challenge for the reader–find the regulations that outline who can be added to a waitlist in the District.) Presumably a first-time parent with a very good knowledge of how the DOE manages waitlists in the District, and the above statistics for a previous year, could get themselves added to the correct waitlists, assuming that they did not match to any of their selected kindergartens. I’m pretty sure this is unrealistic for most District parents, since this information isn’t contained in any single place.

     Of course they can always transfer in at a later date if an opening appeared, as transfers ARE allowed in the District (with the exception of three schools–another challenge for the reader–identify the three schools, and explain how an applicant could discover this restriction).

     So what of the rest of the students who will presumably attend other schools in the District? In an ideal world, the parents at those schools would bring those schools up to the level of the schools above. For some of these schools, that’s exactly the history–PS110, for example, is over 100 years old. I can’t help notice, however, that many of these schools were born out of a desire for a new, different school experience (e.g., mixed grades working together). More than half of the slots above come from [relatively] new schools: East Village Community was started in the late 1980s, Neighbourhood and Earth schools were started in the early 1990s, Shuang Wen in the late 1990s. I sometimes find myself wondering if these schools engendered as much opposition when they were created, with parents arguing about fixing the traditional schools that they would displace and the equity of creating schools that would not be suitable for all children of the District (e.g., schools with Dual Language emphasis, schools without “traditional” classes with kids in seats all day). Of course I look at in retrospect and wonder what took so long to create these schools-do we really think that all the students in the 1950s were well served by having butts in seats at “traditional” schools?

     Or maybe there was no such opposition to “different” schools and their effects on the existing District schools. Maybe this is, in fact, inherent to Charters (at least the way charters are created today in NYC). where the entire objection is with issues of Union teachers, and local control and sharing buildings. I’ve asked a few people who were around the District in the mid 1980s about this–never have gotten a satisfactory answer.

110. 

     NYC Educator

     October 12th, 2009 8:33 pm

     I think it’s fairly simple, David. One of the things Gordon stresses is good ingredients. On almost every show I’ve seen he stresses them. I’d say the missing ingredients to good schools in NYC are reasonable class size and decent facilities. While Gordon’s yet to weigh in, the highest court in the state shares my opinion.

     Thus far, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have opted not to experiment with these ingredients, though they’ve promised to, and though they’ve received hundreds of millions of dollars to do so.

     I’m sorry if your child got shut out of a good school. I’m also surprised, because my school turns away absolutely no one, no matter how overcrowded it becomes.

     Gordon bemoans greedy restaurant managers who overbook. It would be nice if the city placed caps on schools, rather than overloading them up to 250% capacity. That’s not a recipe for success, even in the best of public schools.

     In fact, it’s the mayor’s responsibility to give you local schools with decent conditions that aren’t overcrowded, even if you aren’t a lottery winner.

111. 

     Michael M.

     October 12th, 2009 9:54 pm

     David,
     I’m not sure what is the relevance of an extensive analysis that shows top schools are more in demand than they have seats to meet… in a non-zoned District… when the original topic was… charters displacing district schools, using one pair as an example.

     Where would 01M188 fall on a list with a cut point placed lower than your admittedly arbitrary 70% at Level 3+ on ELA?

     On the 2008-9 School Progress Report, PS188 got an A. 63% got a 3 or 4 on ELA. (77% on math.)
     The prior year, the school also got an A, with 50% getting a 3 or 4 on ELA. (72% on Math.) The first year of the reports, 39% ELA and 57% Math. In each year, per the “progress” metric, the school provides MORE than one year’s progress to its kids, and the quoted “performance” metric is consistent with that. In each of the three reports, PS188 is in the top half if not top quartile of schools both citywide and peergroupwide at providing well more than one year’s progress. This is quite laudable.

     In short, this is a school succeeding at raising the performance levels of its kids.

     So WHY should THEIR “right” to grow by TRUNCATED by the injection of a charter, albeit one with slightly better scores in the one year for which it has a Progress Report?

     Of the 180 kids turned away from their #1 ranked school… how many got their #2 rank? (Obviously, if they picked as second-ranked any of the other 7 schools, they weren’t getting in.) And where did they go?

     7 schools out of how many? 416 kids out of how many?

     And finally, I note you still have yet to disclose your true horse in the race, nor have you taken me up on my offer to correspond off line.

     Why WOULD someone accuse you of blackmail?

     BTW, with your knowledge of D1 policies, I hope you run for CEC the next cycle, Spring 2011, if not put your hat in the ring to fill vacancies that might pop up prior.

112. 

     Michael M.

     October 12th, 2009 9:54 pm

     No one gives me the right to open a restaurant… in someone else’s restaurant. Sheesh.

113. 

     Bijou Miller

     October 12th, 2009 10:18 pm

     Michael, That was like haiku- it was so right.

114. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 9:37 am

     District One Admissions Timeline

     1989-1994: CSB One creates 4 new schools with full day pre-k

     Feb 1991: CSB One removes zones or catchments, institutes a policy on controlled choice for diversity, using race/ethnicity based lotteries in oversubscribed schools.

     April 1994: Central Board/Chancellor approve CSB One resolution from Dec.1993 instituting lottery in oversubscribed schools w/ racial and ethnic quotas/caps,

     Jan 2004: School Boards dissolved, DoE Regions created, status of district enrollment policy becomes unclear (ie: two tiered system of zoned vs choice schools).

     Nov 2006: CEC meets w/ Marty Barr who hints at increased centralization of K-12 admissions soon to come. We discuss ways to desegregate District One schools, such as geography based methods, and the importance of outreach to arrive at equity.

     March 2007: Centralized citywide admission policy imposed by OSEPO. All pre-k students must reapply to K. All lotteries in oversubscribed schools are blind.

     April 2007: Meeting at Tweed with Chris Cerf, Deputy Chancellor; Joel Rose, Cerf’s COS; Marty Barr, OSEPO; Michael Best, Head of DoE Legal; Lisa Donlan, CEC President; Michelle Haring, District One Principal; Art Eisenberg, NYCLU; Delores Schaefer, former CSB One President; to discuss District One admissions history/values.

     June 2007: Joint Presidents Council /CEC District One town hall meeting w/ Mike Best, Marty Barr, Liz Sciabarra (head of OSEPO). Hundreds of parents speak out on our policy/values. DoE offers the possibility that D One be granted its own policy to maintain those values. All are awaiting Supreme Court decision on race/admissions to proceed.

     July 2007: Meredith Court decision ruling, split between the two opposing camps, allows for diversity as a compelling educational goal, as long as it can be defined and achieved with markers other than race and does not categorize or treat individuals. (see Berkley/LA schools where use of race among other admission criteria recently upheld).
     4 Parent Workgroups formed: Outreach/Diversity/Pre-k and Sibling priority.
     Community Board 3 unanimously passes resolution supporting the CEC/community policy requests on admissions.

     August 2007: Diversity community workgroup fifty-plus page proposal using geography based model submitted to OSEPO- no response from DoE.

     Oct 2007: Mr. Barr, executive director of elementary enrollment of OSEPO, invited to a CEC calendar meeting. Barr cancels appearance at CEC public meeting at the last minute because, despite his public promise at the June CEC meeting to deliver a policy accommodating district needs before the start of the new school year, he has no policy. Under pressure from several local elected political representatives, parents, parent leaders and the news media, Mr. Barr did attend, announcing that a new Gifted and Talented policy proposal was imminent and the early childhood/elementary policy would follow several weeks later- in late November. No policy follows.

     Jan 2008: Mr. Barr promises to collaborate with the workgroups studying the other demographic markers of diversity- geography; socioeconomic status such as poverty; and ELL status, to model a process for the lotteries to admit K students the next year.

     Feb 2008: Mr. Barr does not respond to email recap of these decisions, but does agrees on telephone to work with the CEC on a diversity–based lottery for next year.

     Nov 2008: DoE releases guidelines for K admissions- making D One an exception by centralizing admissions. Mr. Barr decides not to work on the lottery or Pre-K issue with the CEC.

     Dec 2008: Meeting among parents/electeds/OSEPO to request again OSEPO’s collaboration on the two issues of Pre-k to K continuity and diversity based lottery.

     Feb –March 2009: Letters of support to Chancellor Klien from CEC One , district One Presidents Council, NYS Assembly Speaker Silver, MBP Stringer, NYS Sen Squadron, NYS Assembly member Kavanagh, Assembly Member Glick, City Council member Mendez, City Council member Gerson, Public Advocate Gotbaum. No response from DoE.

     Pre-K

     • District 1 schools offer full-day pre-K classes in all the elementary schools

     • New admissions policy requires children already attending Pre-K program in a local school to reapply to that school to continue attending as a Kindergarten student.

     • In oversubscribed schools DoE will hold a blind lottery for k admissions, like in Pre-K.
     • Local parents, the Presidents Council, CEC, many electeds oppose this policy.

     • Pre-K children should be allowed to continue to matriculate into Kindergarten in the schools that they currently attend.

     • DoE reports that in October 2008 625 students attended pre-K programs in District 1.
     331 of those attend District One schools. Removing these families and their young children from their friends and school environment and forcing them to attend a new school in the district is bad policy.

     • We support every child having an equal chance to get into all schools, but not at the expense of disrupting the lives of families whose children already attend the pre-K programs in a local District 1 school.

     Diversity, equity, controlled choice

     • Over the past 7 years this city, like this nation, has seen greater racial and economic segregation in our schools- be it in the gifted and talented programs, the select high schools, in charter schools, etc.

     • For nearly 20 years District One has instituted student assignment plans that attempt to provide choice to parents in a manner that continues to promote racial integration.

     • Parents, elected parent bodies and our local elected representatives have urged DOE to engage in more discussion with parents and the CECs to identify an equitable admissions system that maintains district values (parent choice, educational continuity, family continuity, diversity) and policies in the new Citywide Kindergarten admissions proposal.

     There has been no response from the Department of Education (DOE) to the recent letters from parents, elected officials and local education leaders asking to:

     Re-institute pre-kindergarten as a point-of-entry to elementary school.
     The CEC is willing to work with DoE to remove any barriers to equity such as ensuring that each school has enough seats in Kindergarten so that current Pre-K students can matriculate to K and new K applicants can be reasonably accommodated.

     Create a controlled choice program that conforms to the requirements of the DOE and upholds the District’s tradition of excellence, choice and diversity.
     We propose a socioeconomic based model, along with robust outreach efforts, (like that in effect in the Cambridge Public Schools) that narrows the Title One spread among community schools.

115. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 9:48 am

     I am sorry, Ken= another long and complicated post above!

     This is a brief recap of 20 years of a choice-based voluntary segregation plan that used the creation of small innovative new schools, housed in TPS buildings with underenrolled schools to reinvigorate, repopulate Community School District One.

     The blog format is a lousy one to cut and paste time lines and bullet point summaries into, so again, apologies for the confusion that result.

116. 

     Michael M.

     October 13th, 2009 10:36 am

     Lisa,

     “voluntary DE-segregation,” no?

     Kudos. Keep them long posts coming.

     People who are serious about the issues will seriously try to understand them.

     Kleinberg dogma holds that inner city TPS schools are hopeless, and the only hope for public education is charters.

     District One proves every day that the above “dog(ma) just won’t hunt,” as the saying goes.

     Complex issues deserve more than soundbites. Unless haiku.

117. 

     Ken

     October 13th, 2009 11:09 am

     Thanks Lisa.

     Let me know when you come out with the abridged version!

     If you google “blog comment etiquette” and read any one of the top results, you might find that it is not just pro-charter advocates that are against very long comments. Or, in haiku:

     Google if you will
     “Blog comment etiquette guide”
     Please heed their advice

118. 

     KitchenSink

     October 13th, 2009 11:35 am

     Haven’t time to read

     All Lisa’s extensive posts

     But her data’s great!

119. 

     Michael M.

     October 13th, 2009 11:53 am

     “Your posts are too long.”
     Pro-charter “philanthropist,”
     Got double-standard?

120. 

     Don Freeman

     October 13th, 2009 12:42 pm

     Hi:

     My name is Don Freeman and I am the retired NYC public high school principal of Fannie Lou Hamer Freedom High School in the South Bronx

     I have been following this blog with some interest for several days and would like to comment and ask questions about some of what has been said by the charter supporters - including Ken and Miriam Lewis Raccah.

     Ken, you stated frustration with not being able to find data on NYC public schools, even after Lisa sent you the web addresses. I doubt very much that any school system in the US makes as much data available. Of course, with Klein and Bloomberg in charge, we now use discredited standardized state tests, where students can sometimes pass simply by guessing, to make high stakes decisions about schools, students and teachers. In fact, the New York State Education Department website states that the 3-8 grade standardized tests should not be used alone to make high stakes decisions about kids.

     I would appreciate it if you would examine information on a couple of the DOE schools from the web addresses Lisa has sent you, and tell us where we can find similar depth of information on charter schools. You did send financial data on charters, but I am sure that you will agree, while this information may clarify the money flow, it does not give us any real idea about what actually is happening in these schools.

     Ken, you have also written that you have supported a couple of charter schools. If you are willing, your explaining what “supports” means would help me and possibly others who do not know you, to understand who you are in the context of this “conversation.”

     Miriam, I am sure you are a very capable school leader, but your citing the standardized test scores as proof of the achievements of your school does not really give me any idea about the academic level at which your school functions. I would like to learn about the special programs, the books that kids are reading, the challenging math problems they are solving, enrichment programs, and the professional development that teachers participate in to improve their instructional practices. etc.

     Charters are frequently attacked because they do not serve especial populations, As I try to understand GPC, it would be helpful to know something about which special populations you serve, including ELLS and students who have IEPs – What are the designations and what special supports are you giving them to ensure academic success?

     Javier Hernandez wrote an excellent article in the NY Times on September 14 titled, “Botched Most Answers on the New York State Math Test? You Still Pass.”
     http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/education/14scores.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

     Mr. Hernandez points out that these standardized tests have become so watered down that they have become quite meaningless. When you write that 100% of your students are on level in math, I am sure that this raises questions for you, as it does for me, about the merits of the standardized tests being used to assess your students.

     I appreciate all the hard work participants have put into this blog and look forward to responses and further postings.

     Don

121. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 12:43 pm

     sorry Ken that Is the abriged version.
     How to boil 20 years of a social progressive movement into a pithy blog post or haiku?

     Let’s forget data, history, analysis, idealogy, thoughtful attempts to communicate. Let’s create some artificial bubble, of constructs and short blurbs.
     Why try to look at real kids, schools, communities, when just a few spreadsheets will do?

122. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 12:52 pm

     I am happy to get back to the “original’ point of the conversation I have been trying to engage here:

     GPC may very well deserve to grow, based on both the success with which it serves its students and the demand for more seats that are claimed.

     The question I have raised is- will that growth occur at the expense of any one else?
     What may be the unintended consequences of granting additional space for the new 5 year charter period as the school is now requesting?

     If there is enough room for all schools to thrive and flourish in the TPS buildings then there is no issue.

     If , however, one school will need to give up resources that are contributing to students’ success in order to accommodate the growth of another then we must take a good hard look at the INPUTS ( resources, the students served, class size, the school ‘s pedagogy, etc) and the OUTPUTS (as Michael/David have begun) of both schools.

     My original point was: if we look at INPUTS we see quickly we are not comparing apples to oranges.

     Girls prep PS 188

     Enrollment 263 400

     Grades served K-5 pre-K- 8

     Self cntd classes 0 1

     CTT 0 6

     IEPs (not SE) 8% 1%

     IEPs ( SC/CTT) 0 22%

     Title One % 68% 93%

     ELL 0 16%

     Students in

     Temporary shelters 4= 2% 51=13%

     In district students 43% ?

123. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 1:04 pm

     Ken,
     IS this comment too long?

     or are the only comments that are too long the ones you disagree with?

     2 hints:

     - make sure your unfair bias is not showing so blatantly.

     - print out my comments and read them,

     But please stop trying to distract from the constructive conversation with silly distractions.

     Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this–had some work to do.

     plus, I was busy adding “blackmailer” to my resume. LOL.

     Back to reality.

     It seems we’ve got a great discussion going, and seem to have touched on many of the important issues of the Charter debate. It seems that a lot of the arguments, in both directions, can be answered with the phrase “it’s not as simple as that”. In that spirit I wanted to interject in relation to something that NYC Educator said:

     >One of the things Gordon says is you don’t expand until
     >things run perfectly in your first place. So if
     >neighborhood schools are overcrowded, falling
     >apart, with hundreds, perhaps thousands of oversized
     >classes, perhaps it would be sensible to get them in
     >order before opening new places.

     If Gordon doesn’t expand his restaurant and I can’t get a reservation, I go to another one or eat at home. If a child can’t get into a good District school, what’s their alternative? Also, do we think this is ever going to happen? Have the NYC schools ever been run consistently well?

     Bear with me for a second here while we look at District numbers:

     The District in question, District One, does have some really good schools, and this results in high demand for slots in those schools. The problem is twofold; First, there are not enough slots in those schools to accommodate the non-sibling District applicants (see below), and (2) the way the DOE runs District admissions, for almost all of these schools only students who rank the schools #1 (and perhaps students who match to no schools during the initial process) have a shot at being admitted. So how big a problem is this in the District? So how many kids are we talking about?

     I did a quick test (writing this reply took more time than the excel work). I looked only at District schools that we might define as “good”. Having no agreed upon metric, I made one up. I recall that 70% was passing in most of my schooling, so I filtered our schools for those who could manage to get 70% of their English Proficient Students to a 3 or 4 on the ELA test in 2008. This resulted in the schools below, with the accompanying admissions statistics I had already FOILed some months ago (note; I’ve adjusted the admissions statistics by removing all siblings from both applicants and slots, since we are discussing non-sibling applicants). Applicants are only those who ranked the school #1.

     Non-sibling applicants (#1 rank) non-sibling slots
     01M20 (Anna Silver) 56 54
     01M64 (Robert Simon) 18 25
     01M110 (Florence Nightingale) 64 34
     01M184 (Shuang Wen) 100 27
     01M315 (East Village Community) 28 21
     01M363 (Neighbourhood School) 41 30
     01M364 (Earth School) 109 52

     Note that I’ve removed NEST+M since they admit through the city-wide G&T test with no preference for District One students, as well as one school without a Kindergarten (01M839). Also this list may slightly overestimate the odds of admission to Shuang Wen for most applicants since the DOE had already announced the formation of a CTT class at Shuang Wen before applications were due, and since a CTT class has a minimum and maximum percentage of mandated (IEP) students, it is unclear if the DOE did a true random lottery for all slots or specifically selected children with IEPs for some CTT slots separately (I’m trying to determine this now).

     If we look at the totals, we find that 416 non-sibling children applied to these schools as first preference, and that 236 of those children were accommodated in their first choice (this total includes only 18 of the 01M64 applicants). Thus ~43% of the applicants did not get their first choice schools. Worse, as I explained above, since all but one of these schools filled their class from the list of those ranking it #1, the best that any of these students who did not match their first choice could hope for is a waitlist slot at their first choice (a challenge for the reader–find the regulations that outline who can be added to a waitlist in the District.) Presumably a first-time parent with a very good knowledge of how the DOE manages waitlists in the District, and the above statistics for a previous year, could get themselves added to the correct waitlists, assuming that they did not match to any of their selected kindergartens. I’m pretty sure this is unrealistic for most District parents, since this information isn’t contained in any single place.

     Of course they can always transfer in at a later date if an opening appeared, as transfers ARE allowed in the District (with the exception of three schools–another challenge for the reader–identify the three schools, and explain how an applicant could discover this restriction).

     So what of the rest of the students who will presumably attend other schools in the District? In an ideal world, the parents at those schools would bring those schools up to the level of the schools above. For some of these schools, that’s exactly the history–PS110, for example, is over 100 years old. I can’t help notice, however, that many of these schools were born out of a desire for a new, different school experience (e.g., mixed grades working together). More than half of the slots above come from [relatively] new schools: East Village Community was started in the late 1980s, Neighbourhood and Earth schools were started in the early 1990s, Shuang Wen in the late 1990s. I sometimes find myself wondering if these schools engendered as much opposition when they were created, with parents arguing about fixing the traditional schools that they would displace and the equity of creating schools that would not be suitable for all children of the District (e.g., schools with Dual Language emphasis, schools without “traditional” classes with kids in seats all day). Of course I look at in retrospect and wonder what took so long to create these schools-do we really think that all the students in the 1950s were well served by having butts in seats at “traditional” schools?

     Or maybe there was no such opposition to “different” schools and their effects on the existing District schools. Maybe this is, in fact, inherent to Charters (at least the way charters are created today in NYC). where the entire objection is with issues of Union teachers, and local control and sharing buildings. I’ve asked a few people who were around the District in the mid 1980s about this–never have gotten a satisfactory answer.

124. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 1:22 pm

     Rules, like statistics, can say anything you’d like.

     Found this one on a blog etiquette site:

     Rule #10 – Rules are made to be broken. So break some. Make it yours and be happy with it.

125. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 1:24 pm

     Rule #1
     if someone is winning the argument with thoughful comprehensive ( and long winded) posts, then crticize them, their position, their title and the time they spend posting

126. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 1:25 pm

     Rule number 2

     If you can not win hearts and mind by your thoughful ideology, mastery of the facts and figures, use ad hominen attacks to distract the readers.

127. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 1:27 pm

     Rule #3
     If you get busted for attacking your opponents, instead of their message, attack the form of their message. Ignore the same use of form by people who agree with you.

128. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 1:28 pm

     Since GS does not have its own blog etiquette rules, as the google search Ken steered me to suggested, I thought I’d help start one, following financial backer Ken’s own play book.

129. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 13th, 2009 1:37 pm

     Davids post ( the one I reposted, asking if it was too long) = 1106 words.

     My last post on District One admissions policy and history= 1037 words.

     ooops, a little bias is showing

130. 

     KitchenSink

     October 13th, 2009 2:01 pm

     Hey Lisa, did you find any rules about consecutive unanswered posts?

131. 

     Ken

     October 13th, 2009 2:03 pm

     Hey Don,

     I agree that the DOE makes a ton of data available for traditional public schools. In my experience, they make most of this data available for charter schools as well. I would like to see them make even more data available for both. I think there is some very important data that is available for charter schools, like school-level financial data, that I haven’t been able to find for traditional public schools. In general, I think the data made available for both traditional and charter schools is pretty good, but could be much better.

     I have been a financial supporter of several charter schools.

132. 

     Leonie Haimson

     October 13th, 2009 2:09 pm

     Ken: does the school level financial data available for charters include all their spending on promotion, recruitment, top level executive salaries, payments to CMO’s, as well as the (relatively hidden) subsidies of costs provided by DOE, including food, transportation, energy, facilities etc?

     If not, not sure that this information is so useful.

133. 

     Ken

     October 13th, 2009 2:25 pm

     Hey Leonie,

     My post from earlier this year discusses some of those issues: http://gothamschools.org/2009/05/17/charter-school-expenses/.

     I concluded that: “These numbers, from what I understand, include all expenses by the charter school, including the value of services rendered by a CMO (Charter Management Organization).”

     Top executive compensation is included at the school level, although one would have to look at the 990 for the CMO to get information for the CMO-level executives. That is publicly available information.

     DOE school space is not included, apparently because it is not charged to traditional public schools either.

     I think the audits are imperfect but very good sources of school-level financial data. If we had something comparable for traditional public schools, we would be much closer to answering the funding parity question. Of course, we would also need to know relevant demographic data for each school.

134. 

     Jusith

     October 14th, 2009 2:31 pm

     Hi,

     I would like to comment on David’s post wondering about the founding of the four small progressive schools in CSD 1 as a founding teacher and retired administrator of the Neighborhood School. The schools were founded individually by parents or teachers, or parents and teachers working together to create schools founded on ideals of socail justice and opportunities for deep and individual learning. Teachers and parents worked (and continue to work) hard to make quality schools not only for their own children but for any children in the community whose parents are interested.
     The schools were created to offer children experiential, project based learning environments in which they could pursue individual interests, develop capacity in a wide range of areas including technology and the arts and learn to think critically about the world, find a productive place in it and take responsiblity to make it better. They were created so that children from a wide range of backgrounds and cultures could learn to work together, understand each others’ lives and points of view and solve problems together peacefully and democratically. The schools as incubators of active citizenship extended not only to the children but to the adults as well who, as teachers and parents, were invited to participate and create.
     Although a group of parents had been meeting for years, it was not until the election of a reform minded school board that the first school was established. The three others soon followed with the appointment of a new superintendent. There was considerable animosity towards the new schools on the part of some established community organizations, school communities and district office personnel who saw the schools not as vigorous choices but as threats to the satus quo. The schools were often characterized unfairly. Although the idea of becoming charter schools came up several times, the schools decided that they stood firm to the ideals of public education for creating a questioning, well informed, well educated and productive citizenry.
     Divisons are created by whatever power structure would like to see parents, teachers and principals pitted against one another. United Federation of Teachers, Council of Supervisors and Administrators, parent groups - all work together collaboratively at Neighborhood School to educate children. The school has not been without struggles, internal and external, but has been made stronger through the challenges.
     Lastly, people too often think it is exclusive and admissions impossible. Even as of right now, however, there are some spaces in kindergarten through second grade.

     Judith

     PS There is too much emphasis placed on standardized test scores. They reveal limited information and were not designed for the purposes of ranking schools. The smaller the school, the more misleading the information. Diane Ravich and Debbie Meier, two leading education experts who are polar opposites in their thinking about education, are in agreement about this. What did you get on your scores? What did you get on your SATs? Did they reflect your capacity or your learning? We can and must do better for children than to see their learning and accomplishment only through that lens.

135. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 14th, 2009 3:28 pm

     I wanted to write a brief ( I will try) comment regarding the use of DEMAND as a justification for a school, any school to grow.
     Ken, I think raised the point that perhaps DEMAND alone is not a sufficient justification for growth. In one of my posts I cited examples of district schools that wanted to grow, having demonstrated both academic success and excess demand, but were not given space by DoE to do so.

     I am interested to know how there is a 7:1 ratio of demand for seats/seats available as Ms Riccah explains above, yet the incoming K class is only 53% district one eligible students ( when the mandate was for 100% priority to district students for that admissions cycle).

     Furthermore currently enrolled students are made up of only 43% in district students. My question is – who will the expansion of GPC to middle school grades benefit?

     I hope people follow up on the last post- the expanded and limiting role of standardized test scores in education, as Don also raised, and the issue of pushback to new schools in general.

136. 

     Rei

     October 18th, 2009 5:42 pm

     I am a parent at Girls Prep and my daughter has been attending the school for three years and we both love the school!! Girls Prep’s allows for my daughter to receive a Prep School education for free. The school reinforces values such as Scholarship, Merit, Sisterhood and Responsibility that I as a parent instill in my daughter. The teachers and staff are more dedicated than any school that I have had my child enrolled in before.

     The conversation should not be about ‘Charter Schools’ and if they are / not public schools who deserve to share space with ‘public school’ The conversation should be about ‘quality education’ and a ‘parents choice’ to a school that fits the needs of their child.

     As an African-American woman who was raised in the South Bronx, 30 years ago when I was a child there were nothing but failing schools in my district. My mother wanted better for me and my brother and sister so we travelled an hour to Manhattan to attend what was at the time called alternative schools. Because my Mother wanted better for us I am proud to say that we are all college graduates from either Ivy League or State University’s. With the quality education that Girls Prep is providing for my daughter she will have the tools needed to be prepared to go to college and succeed.

     Girls Prep has to meet standards just like any other public school. For all of those opponents who want to stop Charter Schools I am writing to you to let you know that your efforts are in vain. Charter Schools are here to stay and your focus should be on correcting what is so wrong in the many failing public schools around New York City.

     All children deserve a quality education and all parents deserve to choose what school is right for their child.

137. 

     Michael M.

     October 18th, 2009 8:14 pm

     Lisa,
     I just want to amplify and consolidate a point I understand you to be making: Charter schools not only displace TPS’s when it comes to “space”, they displace local, zoned, kids when it comes to “seats.”

     Rei,
     Thank you for your testimonial.

     Tying the two comments together (apologies to both), I would sugegst that the Rei’s of the city should have the choice they want, but please folks, can’t we agree to place those choice schools (charter or TPS) in buildings that do not DISPLACE TPS’s, especially ZONED TPS’s — typically the original tenants, whose PS # is STILL the one over the door — that want to grow and who frequently DO have good scores and grades; or displace local zoned elementary school kids in families that want a local zoned elementary school? (And give the TPS the same class size and student:adult ratio as the charter while we’re at it.)

     Not all parents are willing or able to shlep for an hour. Nor should they have to. Nor should their choice to do so force someone ELSE to do so.

138. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 18th, 2009 8:39 pm

     Hi Rei,
     Thanks for the contribution to this conversation!
     It is great to have the voice of a GPC parent in this mix!

     This particular conversation, at least as I see/ have tried to frame it is not about whether or not charters deserve space in public schools as much as: what is the impact on students in community schools to grow GPC by 300 seats? (5-8 grades, 3 classes/grade of 25 students each)

     As far as “quality education” and “parent choice” and finding the right fit for each child- You are in great company in D One. District One history and policies could not agree with you more!
     We are the only all choice district (no zones or catchments) and believe that each of our schools has its own merits and attractions, and encourage parents and students to tour and visit schools to pick the best fit school.

     We also agree that fixing failing schools should be a top priority for the administration and all educators and parents.
     One of the ways we hope to do that is to ensure that all schools have the facilities and conditions needed to create success for their students.
     And so we need to monitor very closely what impact one school’s growth has on another and all students in the community.
     So to respond to Michael’s point- it may be trade offs on seats or it may be one of cluster or support rooms, for art, music, therapy or counseling, or parent involvement, or dance or yoga.

     In example:
     One local high performing school was notified this August they would be assigned a self contained 12:1 class of district students with special education needs for a most restrictive environment.
     To do this they had to move the art room into the parent room and move the parent room to the basement.
     This was the consequence of assigning the new class of students to the school.
     What will be the “cost” of growing Girls Prep to a MS?
     Is providing a free prep school education to only girls most of whom are from out of district the best use of education resources in District One, especially when the highest needs students in our community are not being served by that school?

     To recap: Girls Preps serves:
     no ELL students,
     no students in self contained or CTT classes,
     very few students in temporary housing compared to colocated schools, lower (68%) average poverty rate, relative to the surrounding community.

     Again: D One averages:

     ELL 12%

     SC/CTT= 15% at ES level

     21% at MS level

     Title One= 93%

     Yes, indeed- All students do deserve a quality education!

139. 

     Rei

     October 18th, 2009 8:40 pm

     This idea that Charter Schools displace or take away space from schools that they share is insane to me. Michael, have you seen how large many of the NYC Public school buildings are? I attended a CEC District 1 meeting last month and one of the topics of discussion was space allocation and survey’s of space that schools actually use for classrooms, office, storage etc. The data discussed was not up to date yet a spreadsheet was shown as a part of the presentation on the topic. Why use information that is not up to date? Many schools share space and do so very well.

     As to your comment that not all parents are wiling or able to travel….Well, that’s the difference between Girls Prep parents and parents who are OK with sending their children to neighborhood schools because it is convenient. I don’t settle for less when it comes to myself and I am not going to settle for less when it comes to my child. We leave home at 6:30am and take public transportation to get to Girls Prep. We get home at 8pm on average every night and my daughter has to date 100% attendance - that’s no lateness or absences since she started school in August. Is this because I am a dedicated parent or have a child that is devoted and loves her school?

140. 

     norm

     October 18th, 2009 9:03 pm

     Rei
     You are making value judgements about parents - and in all too many cases grand parents being forced to raise children due to circumstances- “not all parents are wiling or able to travel….Well, that’s the difference between Girls Prep parents and parents who are OK with sending their children to neighborhood schools because it is convenient.”

     Well, local schools have to deal with the children of parents and grand parents who are not in your position. It is wonderful that your entire family graduated from college. In my 30 years of teaching in Williamsburg I don’t think I more than a few students with parents who went to college, if any and a significant percentage of people who did not finish high school. What does that mean for schools trying to deal with students who are behind before they enter school? In a sense you negate the claims that it is Girls Prep that is the reason for success because the level of education of parents is a major predictor of school success. I would bet your children would be successful under any circumstances.

     In fact, no one should have to send their kids on the trek you do. It separates kids from the neghborhood they live in. When we were kids we all went to neighborhood schools. Most people in this nation do the same. While I understand the situation with NYC schools, the very loss of parents like you who would be capable of demanding better schools is a real loss.
     But not only are you not there to fight for better neighborhood schools, you are in essence engaging in supporting the undermining of neighborhood schools in a neighborhood you don’t even live in.

     Your argument on the space schools have is based on the politically driven (favor charters) Tweed program to declare schools underutilized to make room for charters. The special ed services and other related services in public schools do require space. Speech teachers should not have to work with kids needing their services in closets.

     The other point is one I have made before. If one could extract all the boys in a particular public school that factor alone would lead to a higher level of achievement. SO when Girls Prep talks about its success compared to other schools it is comparing to the general population that includes boys and as Lisa says:

     To recap: Girls Preps serves:
     no ELL students,
     no students in self contained or CTT classes,
     very few students in temporary housing compared to colocated schools, lower (68%) average poverty rate, relative to the surrounding community.

     Again: D One averages:

     ELL 12%

     SC/CTT= 15% at ES level

     21% at MS level

     Title One= 93%

     Yes, indeed- All students do deserve a quality education!

141. 

     Michael M.

     October 18th, 2009 9:08 pm

     Rei,
     I applaud your and your daughter’s dedication and motivation. I cannot say that expecting all parents (and kids) to pull a 6:30 AM to 8:00 PM shift is the answer to what ails the NYC school system.

     As to your fist para, many parents have been demanding an honest accounting of the DOE’s physical space inventory. The Blue Book ain’t it. As Council Member Robert Jackson and others have proven.

     But if you think the “space wars” aren’t real, I encourage you to do a search on prior GS, Daily News and NYPost stories covering exactly that over the last year or two. Space wars are indeed insane. They’re also real, sad to say.

142. 

     yomister

     October 18th, 2009 9:38 pm

     Just a couple of comments:

     1. Rei is lucky to have her daughter at a school she choose. Present regulations require that all district students are given first preference in the lottery for admittance. Although this regulation is rather recent with the last couple of years, it does implicitly condone the belief that charter schools should be community schools.

     2. Lots and lots of anecdotal talk about special education and speech being placed into closets. Where are these closets and why doesn’t the school’s principal call the DOE building supervisor to have this corrected. All space is negotiated! And no building supervisor from the DOE would consent to such an arrangement if it were brought his/her attention. I’ve sat on a building council at a shared school (yes, building leaders are to meet once a week) and our building supervisor would never permit such. Moreover, GP gave up their gym space for he present arrangement - a quid pro quo that seems to be overlooked.

     3. If GP is like many charters, there is no SC or CTT classroom as the vast majority have had their classifications changed to SETSS. 60% of my students came in with 12:1:1 or 12:1 settings, and are doing quite well in a less restrictive setting with support services. So don’t throw around the special education percentages of just SC and CTT -you’re missing a lot of data.

     Although I work for a charter, I remain steadfast to the idea that neither model is inherently superior. Excellent schools are excellent schools. And that’s exactly what all parents should expect.

143. 

     yomister

     October 18th, 2009 9:40 pm

     *chose*

     Apologies, I didn’t PBP (proof before posting).

144. 

     Rei

     October 18th, 2009 9:43 pm

     Norm, I am in NO WAY making value judgements about other parents and their choice of school and where they place their child. To elaborate, I have a son who is in 11th grade who went to our neighborhood elementary school. It wasn’t until he was in 4th grade did I begin to experience issues with the administration and teaching staff. The specifics of what went wrong is irrelevant to this conversation, what’s more important is that I knew that given a choice after elementary school my son would never go to a neighborhood school again and he has not. My son also has an IEP and has had one since 3rd grade so having choices for him are very important to me.

     In your third paragraph….I am in essence engaging in supporting the undermining of neighborhood schools in a neighborhood I don’t even live in…. I don’t agree with that statement and as one parent I can’t change the system to make my neighborhood school a better school.

     Michael M, yes space wars are real and we are feeling it as are many, many other schools are.

     My role as a parent is to give my children the tools that they need to succeed in life. My daughter has had the experience of being in a coed school and so far being in a single-sex school has allowed her the opportunity to grow in ways that I feel she would not have if she were in a coed environment. I as a parent have developed relationships with parents that I know will be life-long friendships. This is something that I have never felt in all of my years being a parent and that stems from the atmosphere of Girls Prep.

     Yomister, agreed, “Excellent schools are excellent schools. And that’s exactly what all parents should expect”.

145. 

     Cora

     October 18th, 2009 10:36 pm

     As a district 1 parent I completely embrace the choice policy and love some of my neighborhood schools. For me as a parent it is also important to be able to make connections aside school for my children with my children’s friends and their families. Play-dates are a part of my kid’s social life and so is playground time after school. The after-school programs of those schools share the same playgrounds and so all the kids from these neighborhood schools share ‘private’ time outside of school> social life. I am deeply sorry that this kind of family/school life is not possible everywhere by the way how schools are zoned and these zones kind of classify families by address but all this also results for me into no need for out-of district space sharers. The space we have in our district should be used to reduce class-sizes, complete library needs, fulfill cluster-room requests and else. Overcrowded districts should not overflow into our district just because you can’t fix your neighborhood schools. You should be able to fix your neighborhood school, even if it would be a charter-school IN your district! Our neighborhood schools were created as programs by parents and teachers, a total collaboration 15 years ago. Also something that is impossible this way today with the charter-school process. People have been there, tried that (in Williamsburg> see the riverschool). Without a ‘big’ player up the sleeve and SPACE you have o chance to open a charter-school, even if the kids to fill the prospected seats are right there (and that would have been a no-traveling situation with neighborhood kids over there). Every district has needs and so does district 1, a single sex middle-school has not been on the list yet by the parents I talked to, and I have been president’s council president for two years, CPAC rep for another two plus PTA president for two. That were a lot of parents, believe me. But I haven’t been up in the Bronx to ask parents up there, had no business to do so, I thought. We live and love our diversity very locally though and even have to fight for it against DOE rules and regulations all the time. If you ask me all kids should be together in the same school on a local level, commute is bad enough for grown-ups, no offense Rei, I understand your desperation to find a good place for your precious girl, I have one my own, I really do understand. But our district can’t fix what’s broken for the rest of the city. We are doing good because we are very small and can keep it personal in a good way, I think. Big is complicated and the DOE’s one-size-fits-all attitude doesn’t help to achieve that for all.

146. 

     Michael M.

     October 19th, 2009 10:39 am

     yomister,
     Re #2:
     Channel 7 Eyewitness News did a story on overcrowding in Greenwich Village about a year ago. The segment included video of a special ed pull-out session being conducted in a coverted rest room or similar.

     I WISH the logic by which you dispense with the anecdotal evidence were valid.

     General:
     Uh-gain… Where is any pressure to hold Klein accountable for the nominal failure, or replacement-worthiness, of the TPS schools he is heck-bent on replacing with charters? He is responsible for all 1,100-odd schools under his wing for the last eight years, no? Rei? yomister?

147. 

     yomister

     October 19th, 2009 10:27 pm

     Michael,

     I absolutely agree with you that many district schools are utilizing every available space possible, including converted closets. However, those schools are not under the guidance of a building supervisor that oversees shared space in a multi-school building. For schools that solo in a building, far less space oversight is provided.

     I wholeheartedly agree that the DOE is seeking additional charters as a work around for their own inability to improve presently existing schools. I do not believe that increasing the cap on the number of charter schools is prudent at present. Many charters are in their infancy, and the sustainability of high achieving charters will need to be measured over a longer period of time. Moreover, under the Bloomberg’s plan to increase the size of the cap, charter schools will essentially fall under mayoral control rather than state regulators - a slippery slope worthy of concern.

148. 

     David

     October 21st, 2009 1:14 am

     Lisa,

     I should have caught this earlier, but apparently I’m a bit slow this year. One misstatement:

     > Again: D One averages:
     > …
     > Title One= 93%

     Not even close. Maybe PS188 is at 93%. From the DOE’s 2008 data (http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/42BA2676-CB95-413C-AB9D-8D1B20C916C1/0/CEP2008DemographicsDataFinal20090601v2.xls), I count about 7678 students in poverty out of 11782, or 65%.

     For reference, and as a comparison, the title one numbers for the schools I mentioned earlier:

     01M20 (Anna Silver) 92.5%
     01M64 (Robert Simon) 79.3%
     01M110 (Florence Nightingale) 58.2%
     01M184 (Shuang Wen) 72.2%
     01M315 (East Village Community) 37.3%
     01M363 (Neighbourhood School) 36.7%
     01M364 (Earth School) 44.3%

     Girl’s Prep 68%

     District Average (includes all District Schools) 65%

     It looks to me like GP matches the District’s demographics more closely than a number of District Schools (at least in terms of poverty percentages). I’ll leave it to you to decide whether this disparity in percentages among District schools is due to a failure of the poorest district parents to understand that they have a choice, due to their inability to take advantage of their choice (i.e. admissions or logistical difficulties), or whether something more insidious has gone on. I’ve FOILed these numbers broken down for the past few years of admissions to see if there is a trend toward the mean for recently admitted students. No word from the DOE yet.

149. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 21st, 2009 8:03 am

     Thanks David for your diligence. I have the document that I used as a source in front of me. It was produced by and given to me by DoE - either by Daniella Phillips the District superintendent or by Sarah Klienhandler the NYS Accountability liaison. It looks at the larger definition of “district’ in that it includes some High Schools, and NEST . Of the 30 schools in this “district” for which we as a CEC, DLT, and are held accountable for “success” in terms of test scores, or “financials” such as the capital plan, stimulus money, Title One, and possibly even C4E (although I would have to check).
     The column entitled “poverty %” lists Neighborhood at 42% Earth at 48%, East Village at 55%, Shuang Wen at 78%, Florence Nightengale 62%, Robert Simon 91%, Anna Silver 97%.
     The district average for the 30 schools (of which only 2 are not Title One) is 93.3% The different data points to the usual issue of trying to make an apples to apples comparison that is so hard to do with incomplete and inaccessible DoE data. This is particularly true around Charters.
     The definition of district, or even poverty are somewhat ”plastic” it sems, depending on the lens, net and criteria used.
     I used the latest data source available to me, which differs from the workbook from last year that Ken pointed you to on the DoE website.

150. 

     Gia Rivers

     October 21st, 2009 11:02 am

     @ Lisa Donlan does your district even have the money to hire more teachers so that you can ease overcrowding given you had the space? NO…the BOE cannot afford to hire more teachers so don’t try to make it seem like there is no space because of Girl’s Prep. While GP does not have an ELL or Special Education class SEGREGATED from the rest of the students as the BOE allows for public schools to do. BOE SEGREGATES students with special needs clustering them into an environment where they grow up accepting themselves as DIFFERENT, ABNORMAL and not being able to function in a regular setting. Well at GPC we don’t ISOLATE the kids who need special needs, but we work with them and let them know that they can function normally whether they have a learning disability or not - that someone is there to take that extra time to work with that student individually. GPC parents, staff and students pride themselves knowing that their roots at GPC are in District 1 and would love to remain a part of it. Like I said before you do not have the money to make classrooms smaller therefore you should be “attacking” the DOE for more funding. I remember you making a statement that said three admin staff were all holed up in one office talking about sensitive/confidential matters where one could hear the other. Well if they can’t follow confidentiality guidlines that I am sure the DOE implements they should be replaced, this was a weak point you made - what does that have to do with GPC? We need to focus on the kids not the admin staff…LOL

151. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 21st, 2009 11:27 am

     Hi Gia,
     I think you did not understand the statement I made at the Sept 30th CEC meeting. I, along with every member, was asked to respond to the DoE’s assertion that the District Office needs a new space (at the same time as GPC is looking for space to grow a middle school).

     Currently there are 3 different offices- the District Family Advocate, the District Superintendent and the CEC- all housed in one large room. There is an issue of confidentiality for parents (and not administrators) who come into these offices with issues around their children’s safety, well being and academic success.
     We have been petitioning the DoE for years on this issue- ever since the offices were moved together in 2004 or so at the start of mayoral control and the first reorganization away from districts.

     As for the special ed issue that you raise, I am not qualified to respond to how a school decides to place a student in one environment or another. I do know that proportionally GPC does not serve even half of the number of special ed students as our district average, and that it serves no ELL students (12% of the district). Some would say that is a form of “segregation” in itself, but again, I leave the debate to others more qualified.

     Yes, you are right. We need to, and do, make frequent request to reduce class size in our overcrowded classes. Despite specific funding to do so our schools often get assigned more and more students, undoing the hard work of principals to reduce class size.
     Sometimes the DoE system does not count the D 75 students who are mainstreamed in our Gen Ed classes, sometimes students form failing schools transfer in by NCLB rules, and sometimes there is no rhyme or reason or explanation of why kids get crammed in to schools beyond the number the school admits.

     We are glad that private funders can help GPC to offer a 12: 1 ratio of staff to students, and wish the same level funding were made available to every child in this city, as per the CFE lawsuit and findings.
     Every child deserves the conditions of success that this DoE refuses to provide to our public schools. Instead they have reduced the teaching force by 6, 000 and increased their administration by 10,000. Totally unacceptable use of a tripled education budget- we agree.

152. 

     Han Z

     October 21st, 2009 6:14 pm

     I’m not sure Ms. Rivers understands how special ed works, and instead chooses to use inflammatory words like “segregation” and “abnormal”. Students are assessed and placed in learning environments based on their individual needs. These needs are assessed and put into legal documents (Federal and State) which are called Individual Education Plans (IEPs) which specifically address what that child needs to grow, to learn and to progress. Sometimes, a determination is made that a child will best flourish in a small class setting, with no more than 12 students in a classroom, with one, two or more additional educational staff (teachers, paraprofessionals). These determinations are made by a team of professionals, educational and psychological, as well as the family of the student. I’ve worked in D1 schools for 6 years and I have never seen any adult staff member or educator treat students with IEPs differently than other students or treat them with disrespect. It has been my pleasure to see and learn of a number of truly innovative programs that would set the pace for any general ed setting. I am also happy to say that the dedicated and talented educators in D1 are looking at ways to to increase mainstreaming and diminish restriction. I am truly saddened by the perpetuation of stereotypes about special ed. It is a disservice to all children.

     As for teachers and classroom sizes, at the same CEC meeting you refer to, the reps from CFE and Class Size Matters, pretty much spelled out that BloomKlein are misappropriating and diverting CFE funds, and every NYC public school parent should be up in arms, trying to get that money directed for its original purpose. And as for public money, the budgets of each NYC public school are posted online (http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/funding/schoolbudgets/default.htm). Is there anyone out there who can provide a direct link to a public posting of a charter school budget, say Girls Prep??

153. 

     yomister

     October 21st, 2009 10:17 pm

     Han Z -

     “It has been my pleasure to see and learn of a number of truly innovative programs that would set the pace for any general ed setting.”

     And which innovative programs are these?

154. 

     Han Z

     October 22nd, 2009 8:28 am

     Self contained classrooms in D1 elementary and middle schools, as well as D75 programs housed in D1 schools.

155. 

     Gia Rivers

     October 22nd, 2009 10:58 am

     @ Han Z:

     The word segregation is embedded in my vocabulary from hearing Lisa Donlan use it many a time when she would touch on many a subject at the CEC meetings concerning GP. Abnormal was used because when I was in school it was the word many of my friends who were shuffled off to Special Ed used to express the way the system made them feel and be seen in the eyes of the other kids. Being the civil and concerned parent (whether it be my child or someone elses) I will take back that word and use kids who need more instruction. Your comment about the parents who should be up in arms I agree with 100% and it should be made clear to them. From what they said at the last meeting they are under the impression (wonder where they got it from) that they have the funds but GP is in their way.
     @ Lisa Donlan: When you explain the admin/confidentiality situation in writing it makes perfect sense but when you throw it in the mix of having smaller classrooms (which we have established there is no money for) you make it seem like GP is holding that office hostage….

156. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 22nd, 2009 12:22 pm

     To be clear- I did not throw the district office in the mix; we were presented the two fold space issue by OPP at our Sept 30th CEC meeting on “use of space”.

     Feel free to ask Deborah Kurshan if she framed the conversation as a two pronged space issue: the Girsl Prep request and the District Office request.

     As far as my constant use of the word segregation is concerned-
     where is that coming from?
     Where do you see/hear me use that word incessantly?
     The only context I can recall is our district policy to promote diversity in and thus DEsegregate our schools via our controlled choice admissions policy.

     But I would like to hear specifically what you have heard and when on this topic.

     When we look at the special education students served we use the lens of serving high needs or at risk students, and do not think in terms of segregation so I wonder how you came to associate the two in your mind.

157. 

     Han Z

     October 22nd, 2009 12:47 pm

     I am fortunate that for the last 25 years there are District 1 parents who’ve stepped up to leadership, and worked tirelessly to ensure choice and diversity among our schools for the children of District 1. Let’s keep our talk “accountable”. Personal attacks and asides have no place in honest debate.

158. 

     nereida martinez

     October 22nd, 2009 1:08 pm

     WOW, I just finished reading from Sept 30 to Oct 22 ,155 comments to see what is happening at my granddaughter school (Girls Prep) It seems that the board forgot what we really want, a well educated strong young lady that will someday become a leader in our community for all.

159. 

     Gia Rivers

     October 22nd, 2009 2:06 pm

     @ Nereida ……. Halllelujah! Amen!….(round of applause)……

160. 

     Lisa Donlan

     October 23rd, 2009 7:09 am

     FYI- Girls Prep parents and staff have attended exactly one CEC meeting in the 5 years they have been hosted by public schools in the district, despite many many invitations. The one where they are asking DoE to find an additional 300 seats in existing schools for the “renewed” (but actually expanded) charter. So it can not be true that the talk about segregation originated with me or CEC.

     I encourage posters to stick with the facts to create a rich discussion where we can learn from each other.

161. 

     Gia Rivers

     October 23rd, 2009 11:20 am

     @ Lisa - it is not true that GP has only attended one meeting! This year I have been to 3 - and I plan to attend in the future as well as many parents from GP. Everyone have a lovely weekend!

162. 

     Mona Davids outed- parent or DoE pawn?

     October 23rd, 2009 4:03 pm

     There is a new comment on the post “Red Hook charter paves way out of P.S. 15,
     but can’t say when”.
     http://gothamschools.org/2009/09/18/red-hook-charter-paves-way-out-of-ps-15-but-cant-say-when/

     Author: Marge
     Comment:
     Just to let everyone know, the NY Charter Parents Association website is
     registered to the NYC Charter School Center, which has Joel Klein, Michael Duffy
     and Geoffrey Canada on its board of directors, as well as a staff of 18 plus 2
     consultants! (You can check whois.net to find out who any website is registered
     to.)

     See all comments on this post here:
     http://gothamschools.org/2009/09/18/red-hook-charter-paves-way-out-of-ps-15-but-cant-say-when/#comments

163. 

     Michael M.

     October 23rd, 2009 4:41 pm

     MDOPODP,
     Now that’s not fair, and whoever you are you know it. The subsequent comments (one by me and I’m no charter fan) cleared it up. Somewhat.

     Still, it’s kind of hard for anyone to make the case that charters are local-community-driven when a) so much effort is put into making charters a broader movement, and b) charter-backers push back on local parents and local community leaders for noting (a).

164. 

     KitchenSink

     October 23rd, 2009 5:38 pm

     Michael M., I disagree with your logic. What’s wrong with supporters putting their weight behind a loose coalition of community-based (and, admittedly, not-so-community based) organizations to make the whole movement stronger?

     What you’re suggesting is akin, in my mind, to saying that SNCC, SCLC and the others should have stayed in their little nooks during the civil rights movement and not join forces with a larger entity, say the NAACP.

     I would temper your last sentence (and then agree with you) by saying “some” or even “many” charters aren’t local-community-driven. Because some or even many clearly are!

165. 

     Michael M.

     October 23rd, 2009 8:44 pm

     KS,
     Fine. Happy to meet in the middle. You know my main sticking points are the space wars on the local level, and the privatization concerns on the broader level.

166. 

     Goldiemary

     December 7th, 2009 3:17 pm

     I can’t help but notice that girls prep describes its intentions as being at full capacity as
     a K-8. I wonder does that mean K-8 in this building.
     This question has caused me to read their proposal for renewal with intense interest. I
     have several observations and questions.
     Does Girls Prep meet the needs of the SURROUNDING community?
     They state that girls prep gives “absolute admissions preference to students
     residing in District 1.”
     Yet, at most 50% of their students are from District 1. If they were meeting a need or
     even a desire of District 1 parents, I would think that they would have more than 25 girls
     out of the hundreds of District 1 incoming kindergarten class choose Girls Prep.
     They point to their 400 girls on their waiting list as proof that there is demand
     for their school. I agree that this does show demand for their school, but obviously not
     in District 1 because if even 25 of the girls on this list lived in District 1 they would have
     100% of their students coming from District 1. There is a demonstrated need. My
     question is where do these girls live because that is where the need is.
     Girls prep highlights their achievement as more proof that they are needed in
     this community.
     But let’s look at this comparison. Girls Prep does not have a comparable
     population. They do not have a significant population of ELLs or special needs children.
     They certainly do not have students in temporary housing. Their comparison and
     claims are not accurate or meaningful. Let me make a more accurate and meaningful
     comparison.
     PS 184
     Girls prep
     poverty
     73%
     67% free and reduced(53%)
     SE
     more
     ELLS
     more
     ELA
     Math
     ELA
     Math
     3rd
     98%
     100%
     96%
     100%
     4th
     96%
     100%
     92%
     100%
     All
     staff/student
     22:1
     12:1
     I would like to point out that a 12:1 staff to student ratio is the ratio for a self contained
     special needs class.
     So what Girls Prep has shown is that with a general education population staffed as
     if it were a high needs self contained special education class that they serve “as a
     model for what students can accomplish with the hard work and dedication of the school
     community.”
     Girls Prep cites “limited education opportunities” as another reason for expansion.
     District 1 which has been a district offering school choice to parents offers a wide range
     of choices at both the elementary and middle school level. We have traditional schools,
     a Mandarin dual language school, schools with gifted classes, progressive education
     schools, the school wide enrichment demonstration site for the city here at 188. We
     have (MS)
     Another stated need is that they are needed to help their students gain entry into
     some of NYC’s best high schools. I know that we have students who are accepted to
     Bard, to NEST, to Frank Sinatra, Talents Unlimited, Art and Design and ESCHS which
     has an amazing record of getting over 90% of it’s students into college.
     I question whether District 1 needs another middle school. Which is not to say I
     question the need for a Girls singer gender middle school. I just don’t see the need for
     it here in district 1.

167. 

     Naiesha

     February 8th, 2010 2:33 pm

     @Goldiemary…there aren’t many girls from District 1 because the parents of these girls CHOSE not to apply for the lottery and I am witness to this as I stood on line the very first day enrollment opened up and was looking for many familiar faces in the crowd and there were about 3 or 4 out of the 90 seats that were available. Parents play a big role in the education of their kids and I CHOOSE to take that train and bus to get my daughter to a place that I know will flourish my daughter’s mind and give her the tools to be a leader in ANY community. I don’t know if many of the parents in 188 are opposed to finding a better school for their kids because they would have to travel and not be able to drop their kids off in school while they are still wearing their pajamas or they just don’t know any better and have been scared by the teachers telling them that we want to run their kids out….I guess small minds will stay in small circles….

168. 

     Naiesha

     February 8th, 2010 3:08 pm

     F.Y.I —– there are children in temporary housing at GP….

     The people pitting the public school parents against the charter schools is the UFT and the teachers it represents. The rubber rooms are out of control, the teachers are out of control and now Rosie Mendez is out of control. Oh! Rosie yea she was endorsed by the UFT so she has to keep in good with them even if it means not making the right decisions or solutions to help better the future of our country. Rosie forgets she is 1 that was voted in by many people and the DISRESPECT she has shown the parents at GP will be evident come re-election. I guess UFT feels endangered that they have resorted to commercials on television….what next?

Leave a Reply