NEW VERSION: Educational Dysfunctionality and Discrimination in the World of Bloomberg/Klein

Joel Klein disregards decision by State Ed Commissioner regarding Girls Prep charter school expansion while students with autism are forced to move. As outrage mounts, he reverses himself. But the controversy over basic decisions to favor charter schools while discriminating against special ed children won't go away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCYJRj4sMTk




Discriminatory and Destructive Precedents Set PS 15 and PS 188/94 State Education Commissioner Appeals



Over the last week we have heard and seen tremendous outrage over Chancellor Klein’s evoking of emergency powers, disregarding Commissioner Steiner’s ruling in the PS 188/94 appeals case. Local and State politicians have had no fear, and have minced no words, making clear their opposition to Klein’s abuse of power in evoking an emergency clause to allow Girls Prep Charter to stay in the PS 188 building despite the impact on the children with Autism at the school. Klein has recently backed down from this position, now stating he will not use emergency powers, but rather look for an alternate place, for at least a year, for Girls Prep Charter School. In a press statement the DOE continues to claim that there is more than enough room in the PS 188/94 building and maintains not a single child with special needs will be displaced. The DOE’s lack of understanding for and consideration of children with special needs continues to be astounding. For both schools, and for potential co-location sites across the city, what has been lost in the fray over these process and power positions, are the destructive and discriminatory precedents set in Steiner’s decision to dismiss the PS 15 appeals case completely, and his ignoring of the merits in the PS 188/94 case he supported.

Both appeals targeted two distinct areas of complaint. First, that the DOE did not follow proper procedures as dictated by the change in school utilization portion of the Mayoral Control Law, particularly in terms of meeting the standard and intention of the law regarding the Educational Impact Statements, which was further defined by the Mulgrew decision. Secondly, both appeals made substantive complaints, detailing how the DOE made arbitrary decisions when it came to building and space utilization and allocations; largely ignoring the needs and legal mandates of students receiving special education services as well as disregarding the space needs of all students.

The DOE was required to respond to the complaints laid out in the parents’ appeals, and their claims were shocking. In their responses the DOE charged that even though the law requires outreach efforts to maximize public notification and input, they are not required to provide Educational Impact Statements to parents other than through the internet, email and principal notification. Steiner’s agreement with these claims now limits the DOE’s burden to notify the public. Considering many of these co-locations are targeted in isolated, lower socio-economic, under resourced neighborhoods, the majority of parents and community members will not be notified of potential co-locations and the impact on their children, as was the case in the PS 15 community.

Further, regarding Education Impact Statements, the DOE claimed they were not required to specifically outline a space plan for the co-located schools or detail the impact specifically. Steiner agreed with this logic citing the PS 15 EIS stated there may be some impact on enrichment programs and non-mandated services, but that the DOE felt there was more than enough space in the building and that a space plan would be created later with the schools’ building council. To be clear, Stiener used a document of questionable validity to justify his ruling. For this and many other reasons, these justifications are unacceptable. This decision flies in the face of the Mulgrew decision and permits the DOE to provide vague and self-serving assessments and justification of school space and impact. Under this decision, Educational Impact Statements must only state the DOE’s assessment of available space in the building (based on faulty utilization and instructional footprint allocations) and claim that there is enough. They are not accountable for in any way explaining where affected programs will go. For PS 15 this has meant the loss of a science lab, special education office, and several classrooms forcing multiple out-of-classroom providers (mandated and non-mandated) to share space, often at the expense of student privacy and optimal learning conditions. It has meant loss of enrichment and the down-scaling of intervention programs because there are no rooms in the building that are not programmed throughout the day, including the cafeteria, gym, and auditorium. None of these specifics were required to be included, according to the DOE and Steiner, in the EIS, and apparently none of these losses are considered significant enough to define the DOE’s judgment as arbitrary. One wonders if Steiner, Bloomberg, or Klein would have allowed these impacts on their own children.

Among the litany of alarming assertions by the DOE, upheld by Steiner, none is more striking than the claim that designated space is not required for special education related services and that stairwells and hallways are perfectly acceptable spaces for students to receive related services. Steiner did not even address the substantive issues regarding these claims in his decision. His only attempt to address the parents’ challenging the merits of the DOE’s co-location proposal was to say that he, “…could not conclude that the (DOE’s) decision was arbitrary…(because the) DOE denies the assertions and contends…the building can support both schools.” For students at PS 15 this will mean speech in the backs of classrooms or in shared classrooms and physical therapy, occupational therapy, vision and hearing therapy in hallways, stairwells, and corners contrary to the students’ IEP mandates. Is this putting Children First, or Charters First?

In the DOE’s appeal response they state, “Sharing space is central to New York City’s strategy for school improvement.” This “strategy” sets up a competition for scarce space and resources where special education students will apparently be on the losing end. As we have seen in multiple co-location proposals, PS 188/94 included, special education children can simply be moved and shuffled around to benefit charter school access to public school buildings. It begs the question: what was the intention of the state law allowing charters access to public school space for lease? It is doubtful the intention was to take utilized space away from existing public school children in order to provide essentially free space and significant start up cost savings to charter schools.

The claims by the DOE in both appeals cases, and the written decisions by Steiner, leaves parents, and teachers, at odds with the DOE, while they try to advocate for the services their children need and deserve. Destructive and discriminatory precedents have now been set by these appeals: the DOE can engage in a public hearing process where no one is actually heard and meaningful consideration is not given. In the PS 15 case alone, there were over 1,700 written and oral comments given opposing the continued co-location in the building, contrast that with less than 200 in favor of the proposal, yet the proposal was approved and upheld with no regard for the true impact on PS 15 students, particularly the special education population at the school which makes up over 30% of the student body. The precedent has been set that no significant attempt to notify the school community is required, nor is any consideration for the delivery methods that would best serve the community in question. The precedent has been set that Educational Impact Statements need only explain what may be affected in a school due to a co-location with a claim by the DOE that surely, there is enough space no matter what the students, teachers, parents, or the numbers show. The precedent has been set that space need not be allocated for special education services and children can get these services in hallways, stairwells, and in the backs of classrooms regardless of health and safety hazards or what would be the optimal learning conditions for the child as dictated by their IEP. The precedent has been set that space for intervention and enrichment programs, the kinds of programs that every child deserves, do not require allocated space.

Much must be done as a result of these appeals. Policymakers on the local and state level must improve legislation regarding change in school utilization laws and the law that allows charters access to public school buildings. Changes must be made to the DOE’s bluebook utilization formula and instructional footprint to include proper space allocations for our children, particularly children with special needs. Ultimately however, the only truly meaningful policy decision to protect public education and our children will be the termination of mayoral control. Unfortunately, our politicians have not had the courage to stand up to Bloomberg and the wealthy forces behind the education deform movement and take any meaningful action, instead they have lined their coffers with hedge fund and charter school money and allow these discriminatory practices and policies to continue at the expense of our children.

Parents and teachers must unite and fight the forces that seek to dismantle public education, which is happening at the expense of our neediest and most vulnerable children. Make no mistake, what has taken place at PS 15 and at PS 188/94 will now be precedent for far reaching education policy in this city. With the charter school cap lifted, we will see a growing number of co-locations and we will continue to live in an era of governance by lawlessness, where dysfunctionality and discrimination are common place, where charters and profiteers come first instead of our children and where mismanagement and neglect of real public schools become the hallmark of this Mayor’s education reform agenda.

Jan. 26: NAACP Mic Turned Off, Sullivan Makes His Point

In this 3:37 second extract, Patrick Sullivan chastises David Chang after mics are turned off from speakers from the NAACP.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR0eHLefS5k

Join in for 5 Minutes of Booing Uncle Joel - Go On, Get it Out of Your System

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3km1iIY0MQ

Annenberg small schools conference

Another ed conference scheduled for this month, this time on small schools placed inside big high schools.


Here's how it's described:

Nowhere has the approach of restructuring large comprehensive high schools been implemented as broadly as in New York City. Since 2000, 27 large comprehensive high schools have been closed and reopened as campuses of small schools.

In our third conversation series we will look at some of the consequences of this small schools approach: Do the students who attend the new schools have different characteristics, on average, than students in other schools in the city or in the schools they replaced? How do remaining comprehensive high schools change as nearby schools are closed? A research presentation will be followed by a discussion with principals, community partners, education scholars, teachers, parents, , students, organizers, and policymakers about this important topic.

Before the charter mania, there was the small schools mania, when Big Money Gates helped Joel Klein break up the large high schools into campuses of independent schools. Something on the way to charters, but they were only getting their feet wet in those days. Each school was affiliated with one or more "partners," private entitites who gave money, supplies, and other kinds of support of various and who had a say in much of what was going on in the school. Classes were smaller, capped at 27.

They claimed to be trying to change the environment of "big" and give the kids a sense of belonging to something less overwhelming than a big HSS, but no one ever really explained why the DoE couldn't just ask the high schools to partition themselves into houses or academies under the same general administration and remain a single school, with class sizes reduced in the same way.

That would have saved the competition for space. Large and communal areas in the building could be shared (so could personnel), and certain subjects and services could be offered across all the houses. What was it about those minis that were so darn attractive to Gates and the DoE. The only thing I can think of was that it was easier to bust the unions.

As it turned out, the small school movement failed. Gates admitted as much at a Forum for Education in November 2008, saying in some written remarks:

In the first four years of our work with new, small schools, most of the schools had achievement scores below district averages on reading and math assessments . . .

At our foundation, we believe that success ultimately means that at least 80 percent of low-income and minority students graduate from high school college ready. According to our data, the number of low income and minority students graduating college ready today is 22 percent, and that figure is increasing far too slowly. It’s unacceptable. We need to do better . . .

The disappointing results showed how hard it can be to convert large, low-performing high schools into smaller, more autonomous schools.

Without apologizing for the upheaval of a large public system, Gates and wife seem to have just changed hobbies. This new one has a lot to do with assessing teacher quality, micromanaging of teaching, data manipulation, and so-called standards:

So we’re going to sharpen our focus on effective teaching—in particular supporting new standards, curriculum, instructional tools, and data that help teachers—because these changes trigger the biggest gains, they are hardest to scale, and that is what’s holding us back.

I am curious who the "us" that's getting held back is in the last sentence (he must mean the corporations) and intrigued about what these people consider a "gain" (he must mean tests scores, because they don't concern themselves with much else.)

The discussion on the 22nd is being run by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, whose vision according to their website is to

[work] with school system central offices and community constituencies, to explore and refine the concept of “smart education systems,” networks of schools, community organizations and services that promote high-quality student learning and development inside and outside of schools.

More corporations and more jargon (particularly in that link to "smart education systems"}, but in any case, Jennifer Jennings (aka Eduwonkette) is one of the people running this event and she knows a whole lot about small schools first hand.

It could be an interesting discussion, or it could be more of the same, with experienced teachers knowing in their gut what has to be done in city classrooms and how much isn't being done by Gates or anyone else to provide kids with the services they need. Corporations still prefer to play around with data rather than deal with poverty, families with no health or childcare, and a host of other social issues.

Date: Tuesday, September 22nd
Time: 4:30-6:30 pm
Place: Professional Staff Congress, CUNY 61 Broadway, 16th floor (between Rector and Exchange) R, W or 1 to Rector Street, 4 or 5 to Wall Street RSVP to

rsvp@annenberginstitute.org or call 212.328.9280

Light refreshments, Spanish translation and childcare will be provided

— jw

Parent to Chancellor: What's going on?

GEM received a copy of a letter that a concerned Bronx parent wrote to the Chancellor back in July.

We continue to be dumbfounded as to why letters like this have to be written at all in a public system of education.

Joel Klein is not asleep at the helm. He knows what's going on in Seton Falls elementary school and all the other schools that are being forced to accommodate the new charters. In the old days, these schools had to find their own space. Not anymore.

Obviously the disparity is there by design. If the new charters get to have refurbished facilities, smaller class size, more equipment, supplies and books, and longer hours for learning that's great. When parents want to send their kids to these kinds of schools, the essence of what constitutes public education changes. The goal is privatization, not what's good for a generation of kids. The kids who get into charters get trained up early on a disparate two-tier system, and the ones who remain in district schools are never going to be in the favored tier.

The question is: when will tax-paying parents, teachers, and concerned citizens make enough noise to force the politicians and their appointees to change course. Letters like this should be widely circulated, and many others written when they need to be.

— jw

July 2nd, 2009

Dear Mr. Klein:

I am writing to you as the concerned parent of a student in the Seton Falls Elementary School - P.S. 111X. It has come to my attention that the Charter School for Better Learning has requested an additional 5 classrooms (inside P.S. 111X) for the upcoming 2009-2010 school year. After numerous discussions with other concerned parents, the concensus is that the approval of this request would be detrimental to the educational progress our children have been making in recent years.

The Charter School for Better Learning:

— opened in 2003 (utilizing trailers in the schoolyard of P.S. 111X - 3740 Baychester Avenue, Bronx, NY 10466)

— during the 2006-07 school year they began using our gymnasium for their physical education classes.

— during the 2007-08 school year their students began receiving breakfast in our cafeteria.

— during the 2008-09 school year they were given 3 classrooms so that the school could expand from 1st through 5th grades to kindergarten through 5th grades.


The Seton Falls Elementary School - P.S. 111X:

— first grade students were eating lunch, during the first 2 weeks of the 2008-09 school year, at 1:00pm so that the 3 Charter school classes could be fed in their earlier time slot. After parents voiced their concerns, the first graders were given back their 12:00pm lunch period.

— District 75/ P.S. 176 utilize classrooms (3 hearing impaired and 3 autistic).

— students receive physical/occupational therapy in the hallways.

— students receive academic intervention in the hallways. One area is set up outside the only passageway leading to and from the auditorium.

— on any given day the auditorium is where:

a) the music teacher conducts his daily schedule of classes.
b) school general assemblies and special events are held.
c) the Charter school holds special events.
d) outside entities use the space for events.

— the teachers have found innovative ways to make the hallway space look and feel like "mini classrooms" — but in the end — they are still teaching in hallways.


A few questions for you:

1. If there were 5 unoccupied classrooms in P.S. 111X, wouldn't they be used for the students receiving academic intervention and therapy in the hallways? Wouldn't that allow these students to receive services, with dignity, in the privacy of a classroom (with walls and doors)?

2. If the DOE re-organizes P.S. 111X to accomodate the Charter school's latest request; will our children's class sizes rise while theirs remain low?

3. If our children's class sizes rise — will they be able to continue the progressive strides they have made on standardized tests over recent years?

4. At its inception, the Charter school was well aware of the space constrictions and temporary nature of the trailers they requested to use. Wouldn't energy be better spent petitioning the DOE and or private foundations/corporations to assist them in finding a permanent facility conducive to their expansion needs and goals; while at the same time not encroach on an established school?

5. Will next years request be for an entire floor?

6. Will they continue to request space and services until they have taken over the whole building and Seton Falls Elementary School - P.S. 111X no longer exists?

7. Where will our children be educated then? Will they be bussed to faraway schools to overcrowd classrooms elsewhere?

Since 2006, prior to the start of each school year, the Charter School for Better Learning has received approval of all requests made to the DOE — without opposition from the parents of P.S. 111X students.

The time has now come for our voices to be heard.

We feel that all children should have as many opportunities as possible to achieve their educational goals, but not at the sacrifice of others with similar ambitions. To this end, we feel that our children have given up enough in the name of educational hospitality. The Seton Falls Elementary School is our community school and our children deserve full use of the building. We are determined to oppose the loss of anymore space inside of our school.

Please help us in realizing the educational dreams and goals we have for our children; while assisting the Charter School for Better Learning in securing a permanent facility, with adequate space, so that they may achieve theirs.

Your consideration and assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Yours truly,

Joscelyn T. Mahon
jtmahon16@optimum.net