GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

audacity of hope

To read NY’s Race to the Top bid, wear rose colored glasses

New York State’s Race to the Top application is nearly a printer-jamming 1,000 pages, but a quick skim of the documents offers some insight into how the state is presenting itself and its proposals to judges in Washington.

Charter cap:

Throughout the fight over whether and how to lift the state’s charter cap, state education officials and the Board of Regents advocated for more than doubling the number of charters allowed in New York. Lifting the cap would not only improve the state’s chances at winning federal money, they said, it had become necessary as New York was closing in on its 200 school limit.

In December, Chancellor of the Board of Regents Merryl Tisch told GothamSchools: “My opinion is that the charter cap is now at a place where it will prevent us from opening great charter schools.” Yet the state’s application paints a distinctly different picture of the charter cap’s effect:

“Article 56 of New York’s Education Law does include a cap on the number of charter schools that may be formed, other than charter schools formed by conversion of an existing public school, but such cap does not prohibit or effectively limit the number of high-performing charter schools in the state.” (emphasis mine)

It’s commonly known that the state’s charter law allows for 200 schools, but there’s a little-known provision that doesn’t count conversions — district schools that opt to become charter schools — in that limit. With this in mind, the application states that while there may appear to be 200 allowable charter schools, but there are actually 4,740 if you include all the district schools that could convert.

“The total number of charter schools that currently may form in New York are 4,540 conversion charter schools plus 200 non-conversion charter schools, or 4,740.  This represents approximately 104 percent of the total schools in the state that are allowed to be charter schools.”

The wording has charter advocates like New York Charter Schools Association policy director Peter Murphy more than a little flummoxed.

“If New York had a 10-year record of converting its schools into charter schools, that would be one thing and they could make that argument come off as more plausible, but it’s a very legalistic argument to make. And it should not be taken seriously,” he said.

Charter conversion is a rarity in New York, in part because schools that convert remain under the teachers union contract, an idea that most charter school operators find unappealing. In total, there are only 6 conversion charter schools in the state.

“In fairness to the department, the legislature didn’t give them anything to work with,” Murphy said. “They’re putting their best argument forward and it’s a hollow one.”

Tisch defended the application’s language.

“The application clarifies exactly what New York State allows, and frankly conversions are tools that are used,” she said.

SUNY charters
New York’s application gives the number of charter schools that are currently open, but it downplays the number that are set to open next year. It states:

As of the 2009-10 school year-to-date, New York has 140 charter schools currently operating (with an additional 14 charter schools approved to begin operating in 2010-2011 or later).

According to Murphy, there are an additional 17 authorized schools that will open next year, bringing the total to 31. The application doesn’t count schools that were turned down by the Board of Regents and will open under SUNY approval. Under state law, SUNY can independently authorize charter schools, meaning that if the Board of Regents vetoes a charter application, SUNY can override the decision.

Test scores and teachers

In the months that led up to the Race to the Top and in the face of opposition from state and local teachers unions, SED officials said linking test scores to teacher tenure would be part of the plan. But up until now, it they never said how much weight the test scores would have in determining which teachers were successful.

The state’s application says it plans to use five factors in coming up with an “education effectiveness score” for teachers and principals, one of which is test scores. Districts that signed onto the plan will use student data as 30-40 percent of that score, placing “student growth at the center of their evaluation system.

  • http://www.nycsa.org/blog/ Peter Murphy

    SED claims in the RttT application that since NY can do unlimited conversion charters, that the cap on new (non-conversion) charters “does not prohibit or effectively limit the number of high-performing charter schools in the state.” Uh, yes it does. With all due respect, SED cannot possibly believe this, and neither will the Feds. For more on this conversion charade, see http://www.nycsa.org/blog/.

  • http://www.nycsa.org/blog/ Peter Murphy

    Clarification: the RttT application simply says the charter cap doesn’t inhibit or limit the number of charters. I don’t get this statement, but I guess the Department had to say it for the sake of the competition. It should be understood that State Ed. made the best of a stalemated situation forced on them by the legislature’s refusal to approve its (and Gov. Paterson’s) recommendation to raise the charter cap. The entirety of the application is a compelling read, including much of the charter school discussion which makes abundantly clear that charters are accountable and transparent entities; however, the application omits discussion fo the state-imposed charter funding freeze, which wrongly severs the proper connection between district operations spending and charter funding.

  • BusyPencil

    The RttT application states on page 156 that in New York City 26% of bilingual teachers and 12% of ESL teachers are teaching out of certification. In that case, isn’t New York misusing state and federal funds earmarked for English language learners? CR 154 (New York state Commissioner’s Regulation 154) states that funds provided for English Language learners require that such students be taught by a properly certified ESL or bilingual teacher. Also, the many schools accepting Title III funds for after-school supplemental services for English Language Learners sign documents agreeing that all such services will be provided by fully certified teachers. Yet when the DOE posted job openings on its open-market listings last year, it invented a category called “elementary teacher with ESL background.” There is no such thing: The state does offer a bilingual extension to other certification titles. However, ESL — or ESOL (English to Speakers of Other Languages), the actual name of the state certification — is a stand-alone teacher certification title, not an extension or a “background” to be added to other titles.
    Therefore, the city — and through its complicity with the city, the state — have created their own cost-saving ESL certification “problem,” which, according to their application, they’d use RttT funds to rectify. Who can possibly believe that RttT funds allocated to improve English language learning services would actually go toward that purpose? The city’s own Language Allocation Policy advises elementary school principals to avoid hiring teachers who have “only” ESL certification and instead seek ones with elementary certification and “ESL extensions” — which do not exist in New York. In other words, the city is advising principals not to spend money on ESL specialists, even as it accepts funds designated for such specialists.

  • Leslie

    If the corporal punishment and penitentiary style environment that is being inflicted on urban youth via charter schools continue to go unchecked, the money might be better spent preparing the penal and mental health system for the aftermath… Students and parents alike are at their wits ends, being driven to outright anger and endangering their employment to try and safeguard their children daily.

    These schools latitude to detain, suspend and mistreat children is unbelievable to me. It is a hundred and one steps backward. Our right to education has become their right to bring in any kind of teacher and any kind of instruction because their focus is on modify behaviours. There should be no institution with such impact on children that goes without proper accountability check points and oversight. There must be some framework of rules besides the all too general charter that is written by them for them and mostly goes unread by the majority of the community it serves. It took months for our school to provide the charter. It is taking some parents even longer than that to get their child’s attendance records. Why would a parent need that you ask? Well, since they send the kids home and record them as present ( money), since they suspend a kid because he has a history or best of all “because he looked at me wrong” and never have to report it to anyone, it would be an interesting if even futile project to examine the attendance records of such children.

    Quite frankly if we have to bankrupt the charter system to get corrective action so be it. They are making kids who is recent generations have just been told that “education is for them” the people who told them otherwise are liars. They are just being told that education is a better option than anger, and yet they go to school the have every single button pushed, to be demeaned and still not be taught to standard. Is that promoting education or more anger? With a responsibility to instill a love of learning in these kids, but an objective to get as many heads in a classroom as possible get them to shut up and sit still while we collect the funds.

    Somebody better put their glasses back on, turn on the lights, something. This will not be tolerated.

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

25 comments so far today

Archives

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031