Blast from the past re Elizabeth Rose

Look at this posting and the response by Eliz.Rose below, now at Portfolio Planning of DOE, from February 17, 2009.

DOE stands firm: The economy is what caused class sizes to rise

by Elizabeth Green

Jonathan is already skeptical of the Department of Education’s explanation for why average class sizes are going up across almost all grades, despite an infusion of $150 million over the past year in funds earmarked to class-size reduction. The DOE’s argument, embedded in a Power Point released today: It’s the economy, stupid.
The idea also bothers Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters, who pointed out to me earlier today that the state actually increased funding to schools this year, while the city’s budget cuts came with a promise that classrooms would be insulated. “What they’re trying to do is confuse people about the current economic situation to somehow excuse the fact that class sizes went up in the past,” Haimson said.
The economy explanation first arose in a Power Point released today, and the DOE is sticking to it. On the telephone this afternoon, a spokesman, Will Havemann, said the rising class sizes can be traced back to a cut to schools of about $100 million in October, on top of another $100 million cut to schools in the middle of last year. The idea is that, with less money to spend, principals have decided not to hire additional staff when people retire. Not replacing retiring teachers means class sizes get bigger. Havemann said the city this school year had 440 fewer teachers working directly with students than it had the year before.
He said economic projections could also be behind the reduced teacher corps. “It’s altogether reasonable that as principals see the economic writing on the wall, that they’ll anticipate future cuts, and they’ll be more conservative about how they hire teachers,” he said.
Havemann raised one more explanation: that the $150 million wasn’t actually spent to reduce class sizes. The figure is the amount the DOE told the state it intended to spend on class-size reduction this year, based on principals’ reports of what they planned to do. It does not reflect what principals actually did. Havemann said the DOE is analyzing whether principals who said they intended to spend money on class-size reduction actually did so.
The $150 million came to the city through state grants earmarked for a set of six possible programs, including class-size reduction. The grants are the result of the dozen-year-long Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, whose settlement called not only for more state funding to the New York City schools but also funds that would be directed straight to specific kinds of uses.
The city could face trouble with the state if it turns out that the principals did not use the dollars, known as Contracts for Excellence funds, towards those goals. State and city officials have tossled over class size in the past, and both state and city elected officials have chastised the Department of Education for flouting the state’s intentions with the CFE money.

Filed under: Newsroom

Tags: campaign for fiscal equity, Class Size Matters, contracts for excellence, Department of Education, Leonie Haimson, Will Havemann

 Print Share

Posted at 8:29 pm

One Comment

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack

1. 

Elizabeth Rose

February 20th, 2009 2:18 pm

Hogwash! The truth is that many (most?) schools don’t have the extra classroom space to move kids and teachers into! The issue on the Upper East Side is the number of classrooms available, not the number of teachers.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT: Absent Teacher Reserve and Vacancies

Memorandum of Agreement entered into this _______day of November, 2008 by and between the New York City Board of Education (hereinafter “DOE”) and the United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO (hereinafter the “Union).



All terms and conditions of the current collective bargaining agreements between the parties remain in full force and effect. This side agreement assists in using talent and resources more effectively:



1. In recognition of the realities of the evolving budget situation and a pool of available qualified, experienced teachers, the Chancellor will convey to principals that though they continue to have final say over teacher hiring decisions it is his clear preference that the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) pool be used as the first option in filling new and existing vacancies. Towards that end, the Chancellor will send a letter to principals strongly urging them to consider and interview members of the ATR pool to fill vacancies before considering other candidates, explaining the significant financial incentives created herein for them to do so, and underscoring that, as the city confronts the current fiscal crisis, responsible management principles require a commitment to actively and in good faith pursue hiring ATRs prior to filling open positions.
2. The DOE will also send principals lists of ATRS and their license areas and district/superintendency.
3. “ATR” refers to all UFT-represented titles.
4. When a centrally-funded ATR is hired to fill a regular position in a school (other than the school from which the ATR was excessed), on or after November 1st of the calendar year in which they were excessed, central DOE will pay the difference between the actual salary of the teacher and a starting teacher salary, and then, in subsequent years, will continue to pay the difference between the actual salary and the subsequent steps on the salary scale (for example, in year 2, the difference between actual salary and step 2A on the salary scale). This subsidy will terminate once the excessed employee has been in the position 8 years.
5. Until November 15, 2010 a school that hires a centrally-funded ATR to fill a regular position (other than a school from which the ATR was excessed) on or after November 1st of the calendar year in which they were excessed, in addition to being charged in accordance with ¶ 4 above, central DOE will credit the hiring school’s budget one-half of the starting teacher salary that would otherwise be paid by the school under ¶4 above.
6. After November 1, principals can offer to hire centrally-funded ATRs for the balance of the school year on a provisional basis whereby ATRs accepting this offer can be excessed, regardless of seniority, at the end of the school year in which they are hired, or can opt to be placed in excess again at that time. If the ATR is not excessed again at the end of the school year, and does not opt to be placed in excess at that time, the ATR will become a regularly-appointed pedagogue at the school. The subsidies provided for in ¶¶ 4 & 5 above will not apply to ATRs hired provisionally pursuant to this paragraph, but will apply should such an ATR become a regularly-appointed pedagogue at the school.
7. There will be a city-wide posting consisting of all schools that have a high enough rate of absences to benefit from a full-time ATR and that do not have an ATR already assigned, or have enough students to warrant one or more additional ATR’s. With principal approval of adding one or more ATRs, centrally-funded ATR’s may apply to transfer into the district/superintendency and be placed in the selected school as an ATR up to a limit of one (1) ATR per 500 students, with city-wide seniority determining priority among multiple applicants.
8. Excessed pedagogues will not be separated from other job applicants at job fairs, though they will be given the option to decline to attend briefing sessions for new teachers.
9. ATR’s will be used for classroom assignments, e.g. push-in, pull-out, intervention, remediation, to cover day-to-day and long-term teacher absences, to reduce class size, and other assignments within the teacher job description.
10. DOE will make its best efforts to modify its systems so that, by school year 2009-2010, applicants for specific vacancies in the open market or the excess hiring system will be notified when their application is received, if they are hired and if the position has been filled with another applicant.
11. It is the mutual objective of the DOE and UFT in reaching this side agreement to reduce the size of the excess pool by 1) eliminating any financial disincentives to fill open positions out of the ATR pool; 2) creating a financial incentive for the school to hire out of the ATR pool; and 3) improving processes and procedures that will facilitate the hiring process for ATRs. The UFT and the DOE will review the results of this side agreement after it has been in operation for one year and, on that basis, will work collaboratively to determine if it is necessary to find additional solutions aimed to reduce the size of the ATR pool in a manner that serves the best interests of the students of New York City public schools and reflects the need to address the fiscal challenges we face together.
12. This agreement will expire on December 1, 2010 although paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 will continue to apply to hiring done on or prior to that date, according to the specific terms set forth above.
13. The UFT will hold its arbitration (case number A-079-C16257) in abeyance to allow this agreement time to go into effect.





Agreed to this ______ of November, 2008.



For the Board of Education For the United Federation of Teachers

The Cost of Accountability

From Leonie Haimson, posted on nyc ed news:

New report from the IBO: The School Accountability Initiative: Totaling the Cost at http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/SchoolAccountability111308.pdf

Accounting for about $150 M per year; $129.6 last year and $105 M this year – without the periodic assessments, which costed $26M last and $22 M this year.

Pretty good report but there are areas that the IBO left out:

For example, the 62 Senior Achievement Facilitators (including 32 Superintendents) who all report to the Accountability office and are supposed to focus on prepping schools to raise test scores and coaching the data inquiry teams.

These positions DOE originally tried to charge to the state through its C4E proposal, but was turned down by SED; each of these positions earn between $ 1 39,304 -- $158,602 per year -- for a total of more than $8 million.

There may be other areas as well that the IBO forgot to count… it’s not clear to me that this includes all the private courier costs, of picking up the Periodic Assessments tests at schools, to be scanned for the results. I’m sure there’s more there as well. (.The private courier costs now amount to more than $5 M per year – though not all of this can be charged to Accountability.

Excerpt: “In discussions with IBO, the department has taken a relatively narrow view, suggesting that these costs should include only the expenses of developing and producing the school progress reports, learning environment surveys, and quality reviews; school bonuses based on these assessments; and the cost of operating the Office of Accountability. IBO takes a broader view that also includes some school-based staffing costs and related items such as school support organizations (SSOs), performance bonuses, and other items contributing to the larger accountability mission….

Using IBO’s broader definition, we estimate accountability costs of $134.9 million in 2008 and $104.7 million in 2009. Note that IBO’s 2008 figure includes $20 million in capital spending for the Achievement Reporting and Innovation System (ARIS) data management system….
Also “Under IBO’s broad definition of accountability costs, we estimate that $130 million was spent on the accountability initiative in fiscal year 2008 and $105 million will be spent on accountability in 2009. Much of the 2009 expenditures are recurring because the initiative requires commitment of full-time staff. ….

Although IBO believes that the items mentioned above include all major accountability expenditures, there are significant uncertainties about the full cost of the initiative.

Accountability requires the use of internal staff, external vendors, software and other assessment projects, not to mention the use of pilot programs to test the utility of a product or service. This makes it difficult to pin down the overall single cost of the accountability mission. But it is clear that the initiative will continue to be a significant expenditure in coming years.”

Here is my summary:
· Progress Reports…2008 at $2.0 million. Projected costs for 2009 will decline sharply to $195,000
· Learning Environment Survey…Actual spending on the surveys has been approximately $6 million over three years
· Quality Reviews.. Cambridge Education has a $19.1 million contract set to last until August 2009 with more than $15 million encumbered.
· Central Staff/Cost: Aggregate salaries for the office cost roughly $11.1 million in 2008, out of a total budget of $23 million (accounted for elsewhere).
· ARIS (both operating and capital --(though IBO has not estimated the long-term maintenance and upgrading costs.) $22 million in operating expenses and $59 million in capital expenses so far. …
· School-Based Personnel (data Inquiry teams and data specialists) In 2008, $11.6 M with $3.1 million on school-based data specialists. Of this expense, $13.6 million was paid for by state C4E funds. Budgeted at 17.6 M this year.
· School Support Organizations.(one third the costs) for 2008: $18.5 million.
· Performance Bonuses. For 2008 for principals and teachers: about $20 million.
· School Success Grant Program; $30 million in 2007-8, but in 2008–2009 about $16 million, because grants for low-performing schools are being phased out.
· Also , in a separate category, the Periodic Assessments…more than $26 million in 2008 with a $22 million projection for 2009…though DOE refuses to admit that this is part of the Accountability initiative.

Can others think of other areas that should be attributed to this office? What about the contracts with Jonah Rockoff, etc. to study teacher performance, that is funneled through Battelle --http://www.cphre.battelle.org/ or are these privately funded?

More detailed tables here:
http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/AccountabilitySupp.pdf

Here is a summary from Gotham Gazette:
Accountability Costs
November 13th, 2008

The Department of Education spent about $135 million on its cherished accountability initiative last year, according to an Independent Budget Office report released today. While such a number — most of it going for central office expenses, not teachers and classes — looms large in an era of cutbacks, at a press conference this morning Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, who requested the report, and her staff seemed more focused on what that figure does not include — and on the reaction from the department — than on the bottom line figure.

The spending, estimated to come in at around $105 million this year, includes progress reports, surveys and money paid as performance bonuses to school and principals. The largest chunk — $29 million last year — was for the schools’ controversial ARIS computer system.

The total includes money to pay the 79 people reportedly working in the accountability office. Although the Department of Education cautions that all jobs are subject to budget constraints, it lists six open positions working on the accountability initiative. The jobs seem notable for their opaque titles (director of knowledge management, KM domain leader for leadership and organizational management, summative assessments product manager) and salaries of up to $170,000.

But the $135 million does not include an estimated $26 million for periodic assessments — interim standardized tests. Gotbaum clearly thought that figure should be added in, but department officials apparently argued that, since the scores don’t show up in the progress reports (a.ka. school report cards), the assessments don’t count as part of the accountability initiative. It also does not include funds spent on the federal and state tests or prepping students for them.

According to Gotbaum and her staff, department officials have stalled on providing information since the IBO started work on the accountability initiative report last February. It seems apparent that the department, which has boasted of cutting costs in administration to spend more in classrooms, wanted as little attention paid to this as possible. Failing that, it tried to bring down the bottom line, calling in downward revisions this morning. (One may still be on the way.)

Complicating the IBO’s task is that the Department of Education has exempted itself from many accounting and reporting rules governing other city agencies. Saying the department “has not been as forthcoming as it should be,” Gotbaum reiterated her call for more financial oversight of the city’s largest department.

Sidebar: Is it just a coincidence that the high school school report cards came out the day before Gotbaum issued this report? The timing made many education observers wonder. The report cards were released online with no fanfare yesterday — even though they showed average grades for city’s high schools increasing significantly. For a department with a large public relations operation that trumpets every achievement however minor, the method of the announcement was curious. But by releasing the reports yesterday, the department did insure they got covered on their own — without discussion of whether the money spent to compile them was money well spent.

Leonie Haimson
Executive Director
Class Size Matters
124 Waverly Pl.
New York, NY 10011
212-674-7320
classsizematters@gmail.com
www.classsizematters.org
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/

Randi Weingarten and Joel Klein exchange letters on ATR's, Budget

September 24, 2008
Hon. Joel I. Klein
Chancellor
New York City Public Schools
Department of Education
52 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007

Dear Chancellor Klein:

The latest effects of the Wall Street lending crisis has left us all with a deep sense of
uncertainty and unease, but it also presents us with an opportunity to stand together for
the children of this city. With families across the five boroughs already struggling, it is all
the more imperative that we do all we can to insulate our students and their classrooms
from this economic crisis and ensure that every student has a strong, safe and stable
learning environment.

As we navigate through this crisis, tough decisions obviously need to be made. As is our
practice, we have some ideas and proposals on how we mitigate some of the challenges
ahead without adversely affecting the classroom. Creative thinking and smart choices
protected schools from cuts earlier this year, and I strongly believe that we can duplicate
that success now.

In the spirit of partnership and collaboration, we urge you to adopt and implement the
following three measures:

1. An immediate hiring freeze at the central Department of Education, and at the school
and district level for any license areas where there are people in excess and available for
placement.

2. A redeployment of teachers and other excessed personnel in the Absent Teacher
Reserve (ATR) into vacancies as they arise.

3. Develop a program to recertify excessed personnel in additional license areas, so they
are available to fill vacancies as they arise.

The first two measures should help the Department of Education recognize immediate
cost savings, and the third recommendation would be a valuable investment in personnel
management.

We look forward to discussing these ideas and others in the days ahead.
Yours sincerely,

Randi Weingarten
Cc: Deputy Mayor Edward Skyler
Commissioner of Labor James F. Hanley
Deputy Chancellor Christopher Cerf



Klein responds
Dear Randi:

Thank you for your letter yesterday regarding the fiscal challenges facing the City and their impact on our schools.

I wholeheartedly agree that our priority should be to limit the impact of the budget reductions on classrooms and I welcome the opportunity to work with you and your team toward this end.

However, I want to reiterate that we will not alter our policy on forced placement of teachers. It makes sense to try to limit the significant and growing cost of unselected excessed teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve, but doing so by forcing these teachers into schools is not the answer. A return to this discredited practice, which harmed our schools for decades, would, once more, require schools to accept teachers regardless of whether principals and faculty believe they are the best candidates or good fits for positions.

At our announcement of the School-wide Performance Bonus awards last week, you and I both emphasized the critical need for teacher quality and effective collaboration among teachers and supervisors. You said, “We know, and I think there has become a real consensus in this City, that teacher quality and collaboration are real keys – pivotal keys – to turning around student achievement in schools.” Forced placement contradicts both of those goals. It would be far better to give excessed teachers a reasonable period of time to find a position before they are placed on unpaid leave. Such a policy would mitigate the cost while maintaining fairness and obviating the need for forced placement and all the negative repercussions a return to that system would bring.

I look forward to continuing our conversation on this critical issue and to receiving your input as we work to address our current budget situation.


Sincerely,

Joel I. Klein


FACT SHEET ON EXCESSED TEACHERS (from DOE)


Background




· Fact: Most Excessed Teachers Are Finding Jobs

o Only about 9% of the 2,742 teachers excessed in 2006 are still in excess. Well over 1,000 excesses – across all seniority levels –found regular teaching positions by applying for vacancies, interviewing with principals, and demonstrating that they were the best candidates for the positions. More than 14,000 positions across the city were filled since 2006.

o Of the 1418 teacher excessed in 2007, only 351 are still in excess after one year.

o Of the 2,039 teachers excessed in 2008, 758 are still in excess today.



· Fact: Excessed Teachers are Provided with Extensive Hiring Support

o The New Teacher Project provides excessed teachers with newsletters, workshops on resume writing and interviewing, one-on-one job-search assistance, bulletins with vacancy lists, job fairs across the City, and an on-line application system exclusively for excessed teachers.

o In the summer of 2008, TNTP sent bi-weekly newsletters to excessed staff with job fair information and job search tips, maintained a web site for excessed staff with job search tips, offered 15 skill-building workshops, answered 1,000 calls to a hotline set up for excessed teachers, and reached out by phone to excessed teachers who appeared to be inactive in their job searches.



· Fact: The Excessed Teacher Pool includes Junior and Senior Teachers, and Senior Excessed Teachers Have Been Hired at the Same Rate as Junior Teachers

o Excessed teachers who haven’t been hired are just as likely to be newer teachers as they are to be more experienced teachers.



Seniority of Excessed Teachers as of 9/5/2008

0 to 3 years 343 24.6%

4 to 6 years 245 17.6%

7 to 12 years 305 21.9%

13 to 19 years 262 18.8%

20+ years 240 17.2%

Total 1395 100.0%


o Excessed teachers across experience levels are equally likely to be hired to a position at another school:

· 35% of teachers excessed in 2006 with 0-3 years experience were hired by April 2008.

· 41% of teachers excessed in 2006 with 4-6 years experience were hired by April 2008.

· 47% of teachers excessed in 2006 with 7-12 years experience were hired by April 2008.

· 45% of teachers excessed in 2006 with 13-19 years experience were hired by April 2008.

· 38% of teachers excessed in 2006 with 20+ years experience were hired by April 2008.



o Another approximately 40% of excessed teachers are reabsorbed into the school from which they were excessed when positions opened up.


· Fact: The DOE Offers Schools a Subsidy for Hiring Senior Excessed Teachers

o The DOE pays the difference between a hired excessed teacher’s salary and a starting teacher’s salary (which could be as much as $55,000) for the first year, and half that difference for the second year, when a school hires a teacher who has been in excess for at least 6 months.



· Fact: Unselected Excessed Teachers Applied to Fewer Jobs

o Of the 235 unselected teachers excessed in 2006, about half did not apply for any teaching vacancies through the open market system, and they attended fewer hiring fairs.

o Of the 351 unselected teachers excessed in 2007, 62% did not apply for any teaching vacancies through the open market system in 2007 and 75% of these same teachers did not apply for any teaching vacancies through the open market system in 2008.

o Of the 758 unselected teachers excessed in 2008, half did not apply for any teaching vacancies through the open market system.

o During 2007 and 2008, more than 4,500 teachers were hired by schools through the open market system.



· Fact: Unselected Excessed Teachers Are More Likely to Have a History of Unsatisfactory Performance

o As of December 2007, nearly 15% of unselected excessed teachers had been rated unsatisfactory by their principal in the past 10 years, compared to only 5% of selected excessed teachers.

o As of December 2006, 20% of unselected excessed teachers with 13 or more years’ experience had prior unsatisfactory ratings compared with 7% of more junior teachers

o Excessed teachers who have been rated unsatisfactory by a principal at least once were hired at less than half the rate as excessed teachers who had never been rated unsatisfactory between December 2006 and September 2007.

o 7% of teachers excessed in 2008 who have not yet been hired by a school had previously been rated unsatisfactory, compared to 2% of teachers excessed in 2008 who have been hired.

o Approximately 1.8% of all teachers overall were rated unsatisfactory last school year.


· Fact: The Cost of Excessed Teachers in the Absent Teacher Reserve for a Year or More is Substantial and Growing

o The cost in salaries and benefits for the 635 unselected teachers excessed in 2006 and 2007—who have been in the excess pool for a year or longer—could be as much as $60 million in this fiscal year.

BRONX SCHOOL CHILDREN 'LOST' IN THE SYSTEM

From Leonie Haimson:

Congrats to Bronx BP Carrion for speaking the truth. Despite the widespread attempt to make it seem like there were few problems this year, the problems of overcrowding, lack of placements, and poor transportation appear rampant.

According to his new report, “we have seen that there is a systemic problem in the way that the Department of Education approaches, and plans for the new school year. A systemic problem that has not gone away despite all the changes the Department has undertaken; a problem that if allowed to persist,will continue to leave countless New York families out in the cold, waiting for their children to receive the quality education they have been promised, and deserve."

Here are quotes from Bronx principals:

“I am so overcrowded I don't have enough chairs for the students. I informed HS Enrollment that they were sending too many students but they kept sending them anyway.” ~Bronx School Principal

In addition to problems with general education enrollment, principals are reporting serious problems with the enrollment of special education students this year. Enrollment and transfer requests for special education students that were supposed to be processed before this school year have not taken place. This has left countless special education students in schools without the appropriate services or out of school all together. This is a grave violation of state education law.

“Students in special education are being given metro cards to ride city busses. I had a grade two child who has turrets [sic] syndrome and hits himself who is asked to ride a city bus. The parent is not given a metro card so it is expected that thd child will ride alone. This is insane. Busses for

special ed children arrive to my school 30 to 45 minutes after school has begun. So instead of more we give less to our most neediest students.” -Thu, 9/11/08 9:53 AM.

“yellow bus service for district 75 students was horrific. Examples: students arriving home at 7 pm with bus company unable to contact bus, buses arriving at practically 10 am to school, parents putting in proper paperwork for change of address during summer- new address not in system and bus goes to old address, students dropped from bus runs and not picked up until a week later” -Fri, 9/5/08 4:23 PM

“OSEPO placements to non-existent or over crowded classes; confusing pre-k enrollment resultingin parents believing they can not register their child.” -Mon, 9/8/08 6:40 PM

“None of the students awaiting special education placement over the summer were placed. This has resulted in many students being in the wrong placement at the start of the school year. In addition, OSEPO has continued to enroll students at our school. This has created an unsafe condition at the school. We need assistance in getting the zone of the school reduced.”

“Special Education bussing for some students was terminated without explanations nor parent notification. No process was in place to rectify situation. OSEPO placed students in Special ED classes without giving priority to our own students. Summer placement was not done. Students are not in the proper classes."

“The prekindergarten application process is a nightmare. The placement of special education students is also horrible. We still have students awaiting placement from last year.”

“Special Ed placement and articulation were not done properly in June causing residual effects in September. Additionally, OSEPO is a poor concept and an even worse reality.”

Wed, 9/3/08 1:21 PM

BRONX SCHOOL CHILDREN ‘LOST’ IN THE SYSTEM
Bronx Borough President Carrion to call on the Department of Education to remedy reoccurring problems that come up at the start of the school year

Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr. released a report entitled, "DO WE KNOW WHERE OUR CHILDREN ARE? An Analysis of Major Problems that Cause Children to get Lost in School System at the Start of the Year".This report documents beginning of school year issues and concerns expressed by frustrated principals throughout the borough.

For this report, the Borough President Office surveyed nearly 200 principals and found that problems are not just in individual schools, but are widespread throughout the Bronx.

Many of the principals surveyed found yellow school buses unreliable and difficult to deal with, causing students to be late for school and stuck on buses for hours. A large percentage of principals believe that poorly planned registration and enrollment policies are causing widespread confusion causing children not being enrolled. In addition too many students are not showing up during the first days of class or registering almost a month after school starts causing them to miss valuable time in school. Another main problem, according to the report, is that strict and complicated transfer processes are forcing too many students to stay in schools that do not have the services or program that they need.

“While the school year has just started, we feel secure in saying that the problems raised by principals are not likely to evaporate over time without significant reforms from the DOE. Simply put – DOE must listen to our school leaders and address the many issues raised within this report. Year, after year they continue to make the same mistakes and keep failing to correct them. .” Carrion said.

The Bronx Borough President Office conducted interviews with DOE officials and educational nonprofits, and held a focus group with Bronx school principals. In addition, all Bronx principals were surveyed, asking about previous and current problematic issues. According to the report: almost 70% of elementary school principals said late yellow school buses are causing serious problems for their schools; more than 50% of middle school principals reported that students can’t get into their own neighborhood schools because of overcrowding; over 70% of high school principals reported that students can’t get a transfer to a new school, even though they may face a personal hardship at their current school; and more than half of all school principals said that DOE changes to the enrollment process were causing problems for them.

Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum said: “I want to commend Adolfo Carrion for this important report and its sound recommendations. We have seen, year after year, repeated issues with school transportation, registration, and enrollment among others. Already, in the first two weeks of this school year, parents have been dealing with an ongoing problem in the Bronx because special education students are being denied placements. Those parents need and deserve answers from the DOE."

New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. added: “Despite the multiple reorganizations at the Department of Education, children, parents and principals face the same problems at the beginning of each school year. As the Borough President’s new report demonstrates, principals and parents are still having issues with bus service, transfer policies, and many other problems. DOE must work with parents and principals to ensure that future school years have a smooth start.”

Carrion explained that the goal of this reportis to unravel the recurring problems, and to urge DOE to work with principals to come up with solutions and begin tackling these problems before the next school year.

“More than half of Bronx’s principals responded to our survey and expressed frustration in dealing with the same problems year after year,” said Borough President Adolfo Carrion. “DOE needs to understand the challenges principals are facing and create meaningful solutions, they (principals) are on the front line of our education system and we need to listen to them”.

Some of the solutions offered by the reports are:

1. DOE must respond to excessive and repeated lateness and negligence of yellow school bus drivers. DOE must ensure bus drivers know their routes, children are assigned to the most convenient routes and bus company personnel are properly trained to supervise children.

2. The DOE must simplify enrollment and registration for parents and principals and do a better job of explaining new policies to parents and principals.

3. The DOE must respond quicker to situations where students are absent or register late at the start of the school year. Children that are absent or not registered at the start of the school year need to be tracked better and DOE must do more to follow up with parents to ensure students are in school and register on time.

4. The DOE must simplify the School Transfer Process. The DOE can do more to allow children who have legitimate reasons to transfer within practical limits, especially when it is recommended by principals.

For the Bronx Borough President Carrion, there is no doubt that some of these problems exist beyond school officials' control and that parents need to take a greater role in their children's schooling and daily lives. “But school officials and administrators can step up to deal with management practices that get in the way of running our schools.”

See report here: http://bronxboropres.nyc.gov/en/PDFs/BxBp-New_School_Year_Report-FINAL.pdf

City taking back 82% of placards for educators

BY CARRIE MELAGO and KATHLEEN LUCADAMO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Wednesday, August 27th 2008, 2:34 AM

The city is slashing the number of parking permits it gives education employees by 82%, leaving staff to scramble for 11,150 spots outside of schools across the city.

Mayor Bloomberg had vowed in January to trim the number of placards by 20% - a cut of 12,600, considerably less than the the 52,240-placard hit educators now will be taking.

The original plan was drastically altered when city officials found that the number of placards given to teachers and other school staff outnumbered the spaces by a ratio of six to one.

"That creates a situation where you are asking for problems," said Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler.

Instead of towing and ticketing cars when school starts next week, the city is giving people until Oct. 1, he said.

Of the remaining permits, 10,007 will be for parking around the schools, and the remaining 1,142 are reserved for staff who travel, such as home instruction teachers.

Only one placard with unlimited time restrictions is available to the Education Department, and that goes to Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, officials said.

The dramatic drop angered teachers, who were already peeved by a 20% threat.

"I don't know what is going to happen, but it's not going to be pleasant," said Charles DiBenedetto, a teacher at Richmond Hill High School.

"Parking is atrocious. There are a thousand driveways," he said of the neighborhood around his Queens schools. He estimates his commute on public transit will hover at an hour and a half.

The nosedive in school placards brings the overall reduction of placards in the city to 54%, or 78,026, nearly 50,000 more than the mayor's original goal.

Skyler said the teachers union has been "very reasonable...a pleasure to work with" on the placard issue.

Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, had been prepared to go to court to block the reductions but said she was relieved that the number of spots remains the same. It's simply fewer placards.

"This was at least a rational way of dealing with this," Weingarten said.

The principals and a UFT rep at each school will determine who gets the placards. Skyler said they will consider a pool of placards, a technique used in the NYPD and FDNY so that when one employee is out, another can benefit from the placard.

By cutting the number of placards, City Hall hopes to encourage more employees to take public transportation and reduce the city's carbon footprint.

The number of placards each school gets will be based on how many spaces the Department of Transportation reserves for the area.

cmelago@nydailynews.com

High Test Scores, and Criticism, Follow a South Bronx Principal

Note the involvement in the merit pay/bonus program.

High Test Scores, and Criticism, Follow a South Bronx Principal
High Scores, Criticism Follow a Principal

By ELIZABETH GREEN
Staff Reporter of the Sun

June 30, 2008
A South Bronx elementary school that adopted the motto "The Best School in the Universe" on the strength of soaring tests scores is being investigated for allegations that teachers helped students cheat on state tests.
Several students who attended P.S. 48 said last week that teachers would examine their answers during official test administration periods and point out mistakes and how to correct them.
"They would give you the answers on the state tests," a graduate of P.S. 48, who is now in seventh grade, said. "You'd say, 'I need help,' and then they'd tell you what the answer was."
The Department of Education is also investigating cheating allegations at a nearby school, M.S. 201, which this year was taken over by P.S. 48's former principal, John Hughes.
Mr. Hughes moved to the middle school after running P.S. 48, to great acclaim. He told the Web site InsideSchools.org that he oversaw a 30-point jump on a math test in 2004, and that year Chancellor Joel Klein spoke at the school's graduation — reportedly while wearing a "Best School in the Universe" T-shirt.
The test scores subsequently oscillated, but the general upward trend won Mr. Hughes favorable profiles in the New York Times and on PBS, and he has developed a good rapport with a teacher-recruitment nonprofit, Teach For America.
In his first year at M.S. 201, scores have also shot up; the percentage of students passing math tests this year jumped by 17 points, and the percentage passing reading increased by nine points. (Citywide, scores rose by nine points in math and seven points in reading.)
Yet Mr. Hughes has butted heads with many of the teachers at M.S. 201, many of whom have not been invited to return next year when the school is restructured.
Some of those teachers said in interviews that they fear Mr. Hughes is importing a culture of cheating to their school.
In a recent letter to the Department of Education, a group of teachers reported that Mr. Hughes asked several teachers to help students during the state tests.
One teacher, Sandra Ameny, who came to M.S. 201 through Teach For America, said Mr. Hughes asked her to help her students on the math test, but that she refused.
"He asked me to guide my students to the right answers during the test, and I said that's helping them; I'm not supposed to do that. And he said, 'Well, just guide them towards the right answer,'" Ms. Ameny said.
She added: "He basically said during the exam that I should go over close to them, and for example if they mark 'D' and 'D' is not the right answer, tell them, you know, 'That's not the right answer, try something else,' and just keep guiding them until they get the right answer."
Ms. Ameny said that when she refused to follow his instructions, Mr. Hughes retaliated against her, making her working conditions miserable.
She said Teach For America has released her from its regular two-year commitment.
Reached via telephone last week, Mr. Hughes said he had no comment.
The executive director of Teach For America's New York City branch, Jemina Bernard, would not comment on Ms. Ameny's situation, but she said the group is maintaining its relationship with Mr. Hughes.
"Principal Hughes is a strong partner. We continue to work with him. We have several corps members at the school, and we look forward to working with him and our over 300 schools throughout the city to place our incoming corps," Ms. Bernard said.
Across the country, as standardized tests have become more important to schools — determining everything from whether schools close to teachers' pay — cases of cheating have become increasingly apparent. In Texas, a newspaper analysis by the Dallas Morning News last year found that more than 50,000 student test scores showed evidence of cheating.
In New York, the investigations of the South Bronx schools are among at least a handful of their kind. The Department of Education is also investigating a charter school inside its headquarters building after an allegation that an administrator violated rules by taking home state tests and possibly tampering with them.
The allegations do not always hold up on inspection; last year, a city investigator cleared the names of Brooklyn administrators who had been accused of cheating, saying the charges were brought unfairly by a teacher who had received an unsatisfactory rating.
A spokesman for the city teachers union, Ron Davis, said the union has observed other cases similar to those in the South Bronx, with teachers saying their principals are pressuring them to cheat.
"We've seen too many examples of principals pressuring teachers to help students cheat," the union president, Randi Weingarten, said in a statement. "We must allow zero tolerance for this kind of behavior by principals, and we must insist upon immunity for educators who come forward to report it."
Several staff members at M.S. 201 said they have long suspected cheating went on at P.S. 48. The school feeds its graduates into M.S. 201, and they said students from that school often come unprepared — despite having high test scores.
State tests in New York are graded on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest score. Teachers said that while many children would leave P.S. 48 having scored at a level 3 or 4, they would arrive with skills well below grade level.
"These kids didn't know how to write, they didn't know how to add," a math teacher at M.S. 201 who is leaving the school, Elizabeth Cano, said. "How could they be getting level 4?"
Ms. Cano said the discrepancy would be clearest when the teachers gave pre-tests in the first week of school. "They used to all get a level 1," she said.
A sixth-grader at M.S. 201. said that a teacher once looked over his shoulder and said, "Ooh, is that right? Is that the right answer?" encouraging him to erase and try again.
Meanwhile, 11 of 12 P.S. 48 graduates interviewed last week said they were coached during the state tests.
They said that teachers would look over their shoulders and instruct them to try again and again until they got answers right.
"They'd be like, 'Is that the right answer?' — until they make sure it's right," a sixth-grader said.
"When I was at 48, I never went to class, and I still passed the test," a seventh-grader said. "If you go to graduation, you pass."
Higher test scores could pay off for M.S. 201's teachers this year. The school is one of about 200 participating in a trial project to give teachers bonuses if their students perform well on state tests.
The bonuses average $3,000 a teacher.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SELECTS THE NYC LEADERSHIP ACADEMY

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SELECTS THE NYC LEADERSHIP ACADEMY TO PROVIDE PRINCIPAL TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Chosen from Among Multiple Bidders in Competitive Procurement Process

Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein today announced the selection of the NYC Leadership Academy as the primary provider of training to prospective New York public school principals and professional development to principals already working in City schools. The NYC Leadership Academy was selected from among multiple vendors through a competitive procurement process and will begin providing services to the Department of Education (DOE) on July 1, 2008.

“At the core of the Children First reforms is the belief that principals must be empowered to make decisions affecting their schools and held accountable for the results their schools achieve,” Chancellor Klein said. “Ensuring that our principals are prepared and supported in this role is critical to student success.”

In order to continue developing and retaining top school leaders, the DOE last April issued a request for proposals from vendors providing a comprehensive principal training program. The NYC Leadership Academy, a nonprofit organization that has trained principals for City schools since 2003 through a private funding agreement ending at the close of the current fiscal year, was one of four vendors to submit proposals for consideration. The NYC Leadership Academy will provide several services to the DOE including residency-based training for educators who want to become principals, on-the-job training for aspiring school leaders already working in City public schools, professional development for principals opening new schools, mentoring for all first-year principals, coaching for experienced principals, workshops and web-based training for principals and their teams, and consulting to senior DOE staff on policy matters regarding school leadership.

The DOE is negotiating a contract expected to last for five years and cost approximately $10 million annually.

Contact: David Cantor / Melody Meyer (212) 374-5141