Thursday, February 25, 2010

Millot Finale/Summary

Millot: Sound Decision or Censorship at TWIE (V)
This last post is not about This Week in Education editor Alexander Russo’s decision to pull “Three Data Points. Unconnected Dots or a Warning” because Andrew Rotherham suggested a colleague at Scholastic should make it so. It’s simply a list of my reflections on reactions to this series.


Thank You. I must thank five independent educator-bloggers who offered their hands in friendship for open debate. My posts can be found at Jim Horn’s Schools Matter (http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2010/02/millot-sound-decision-or-censorship-at.html ) Norm Scott’s EdNotes Online (http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2010/02/millot-sound-decision-or-censorship-at.html ), The Frustrated Teacher (http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/2010/02/millot-sound-decision-or-censorship-at.html ), Tom Hoffman’s Tuttle SVC ( http://www.tuttlesvc.org/2010/02/millot-sound-decision-or-censorship-at_16.html ), and Doug Noon’s Borderland (http://borderland.northernattitude.org/ The complete record resides at TFT( http://www.thefrustratedteacher.com/p/marc-dean-millot.html ). I could not have responded as quickly or broadly if they had not lent me their platforms and credibility with their readers – and done so even though we disagree on some important policy matters. They are the ones who took risks.
Now that this series is ended, I will end my guest column status on their sites and return to the school reform blogosphere sometime in the future. In the meantime you will undoubtably see a few of my comments on others’ sites.
Effect. Convincing these unknown colleagues to borrow their blogs offered me a quick response to Russo’s decision and Rotherham’s blog posting. One upside of the “five-blog” strategy was the potential to reach a larger audience. The downside might have been that it was harder to follow the series, yet most of my colleagues reported higher than normal traffic when I posted on their sites.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I had hoped to generate some interest in the mainstream education media. Diane Ravitich (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2010/02/conflicts_of_interest_and_the.html ) and Anthony Cody (http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2010/02/hearsay_or_heresy_--_you_decid.html did post on their blogs in edweek.org, but I have no reason to believe the national media is interested. If you think they should be, let you favorite education reporter know. Reader suggestions can have influence.
Silence. Before I go deeper into the blogosphere’s reactions, readers have probably noticed that neither Russo nor Rotherham have recognized any of my posts on their blogs, or any blog. For both it was probably the best “communications” strategy. From their perspective, any response would simply add fuel to the fire and keep the story going. Neither has a credible rejoinder on the merits, and the bloggers’ usual knee-jerk reaction – the snide remark, was unlikely to go over well. Accepting responsibility and fault was never in the cards.
However, we do know that someone with Education Sector has spent hours reading my series – see here (http://www.thefrustratedteacher.com/2010/02/visited-too.html ) and here (http://borderland.northernattitude.org/2010/02/17/visited/) so ignorance is not a valid plea.

General Trend of Comments. When I had edbizbuzz.com (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edbizbuzz/ ) on edweek.org I found that: comments were made by a tiny proportion of readers, opponents were far more likely to comment than “allies,” a good portion of negative comments were ad hominem, and that edwonks who might be the targets of my posts were well-defended by their “blogroupies.”

This was the opposite experience: a much higher ratio of commentators to readers, more vociferous agreement than disagreement, ad hominem attacks directed against Russo or Rotherham, and no comments from either’s entourage. My guess is more "destination readers" followed the series than might follow a typical site.

Russo and Rotherham: Both have had several years of non-stop edublogging; plenty of time to make friends and enemies. No one expressed great admiration for Russo, but there were few real attacks on him. Rotherham was a different story; he has a great many detractors. There are the usual suspects, like the Klonsky brothers, but quite a few people who do not blog expressed similar sentiments.

Conspiracies. The series definitely became fodder for those inclined towards conspiracies around Scholastic, the Gates Foundation and for-profit education. As I’ve written before I’m not inclined in this direction because I don’t think people are sufficiently disciplined.

I would say that Scholastic was the unwitting accomplice of a friend or colleague of Andrew Rotherham – no executive of any standing had anything to do with ordering Russo to pull the post. Maybe someday, I’ll remember or figure out the guy’s name.

As for Gates, New Schools, their grantees, EdSector etc., my own experience with very large nonprofits is that senior staff can leverage their organizations in ways their President and Board can’t dream of. I see a network of people – Shelton, Smith, Rotherham etc., with a similarly focused view of school reform from a similar subculture of philanthropy acting, similarly invested – psychologically or otherwise - in a specific group of grantees, wprking towards the same ends. It’s not a conspiracy so much as an open secret. They’ve never hidden themselves, they’ve spent a decade daring people to challenge their positions. This is a case of emperors wearing no clothes.

Finally there is nothing like a coherent “for profit education industry.” It’s kind of like talking about the “United Nations.” The industry is divided at least between the multinational publishers, their local consultants and everybody else selling products, services and program. The first two groups want no change to the status quo and would be happy to repeal NCLB. The few, mostly weak trade groups have badly fractionated the broader industry’s Washington presence. And within any segment of the industry there are literally hundreds of small for- and nonprofit organizations.

Very few in the for-profit world are interested in running public schools – it’s a very unprofitable business. Having reviewed the economics of both the charter management and teacher training businesses, I would say the new philanthropy actually wants to push the burden of their own subsidies onto the government, via RTTT and I3. Finally, there’s just not a lot of exchange going on between the for-profits and the nonprofit represented by the naked aristocracy. Sure it exists, but its very likely that anyone at for-profit Scientific Learning knows anyone at nonprofit KIPP knows anyone at for-profit University Instructors knows anyone at nonprofit Success for All. With a foot in both worlds, I can say they are two different worlds and cultures.

Hearsay. I did not explain the term in my first post because there was enough jargon as it was and, although I am a lawyer, I felt I could make my point without still more. But as reactions to the series progressed Rotherham’s post demonstrated the risks policy wonks face when they forget the limits of their expertise by managing to confuse a lot of readers. What follows is the best, simple discussion on point that I found online http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h007.htm :

[A] statement introduced to prove something other than its truth is not hearsay. For example, testimony may be offered to show the speaker's state of mind.
Example: Dana and Bruce were fighting, and Dana shouted "Bruce, you are a lousy bastard." Marla heard the argument and was asked to testify at Dana and Bruce's divorce trial. Marla was permitted to repeat the statement "Bruce, you are a lousy bastard," because it is not hearsay. It was not introduced at the trial to prove that Bruce has lice or is an illegitimate child, but rather to show that Dana was angry.

What I wrote was not hearsay at all. I introduced the information, not to prove “the fix is in,” but to show the state of mind of people interested in the RTTT and I3 grants program. If Rotherham, or maybe his contact at Scholastic, had looked the term up in a dictionary and reflected on its application to my column, you probably would not reading this post.

Censorship. There also seems to be some confusion about this word. At least one commentator suggested that Russo’s decision was not censorship. It was not “government” censorship, which is how most people think of the term. After reviewing various dictionaries on the web, Wickipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship ) offers a fair summary of its meaning:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

Readers can decide who the censor was: Rotherham, the Scholastic employee, or Russo. The net result was censorship.

Millot. No great opposition to me, actually a great deal of personal support. Some commentators had a very hard time accepting that I’m pro-market. Frankly, I think there is more common ground between those who share my view of a school improvement market and teachers than many educators believe. This would be a useful area for discussion and at least one blogger – Anthony Cody, has extended an invitation to have such a dialogue. We shall see.

More serious complaints included too much detail, too much legalese, talking too much about me, and my use of the Millot-Russo email record.

Without going on and on (any more), some quick responses: The detail, legalese and autobiography were deliberate choices. I did not want to engage in a running, sniping, indecisive blog battle. Short items leave too many openings for misleading counterargument. I decided to take “one bite at the apple” with each segment of my argument; I wanted readers to have all the facts relevant to making up their own minds. Printing the email transcript was the hardest decision, but absent it, this would all be “he said, she said.” Russo’s termination of the contract without public explanation left me no choice, and he never disputed the record.

Would I do this again? Absolutely.

Brooklyn charter school has too many rules, distraught parents say


Thursday, February 25th 2010, 4:00 AM

·

No touching the walls. No resting your chin in your hand. No talking in the hallways between classes. Timed bathroom breaks.

With rules like these, the Achievement First Endeavor Charter School in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, could be the city's toughest school - but some distraught parents and former staffers say the overzealous discipline has left kids fearful.

"All they're concerned about is whether they're going to get detention," said Adrienne Lynch, whose eighth-grader son, Nicholas, got suspended for making a squeaking sound in the hallway.

On an average day in January, more than one in five students at the school had a detention, documents obtained by the Daily News show. And on one day, fully 100 of the school's 309 kids were punished by having to stay an extra 45 minutes.

Achievement First administrators acknowledge "high standards" for behavior, but say the detentions aren't meted out for trivial transgressions.

"There is a vocal minority that has concerns with the discipline system," said Achievement First co-CEO Dacia Toll, noting a recent survey found 90% of parents are happy with the school.

But one in 12 of the kids at the fifth- through eighth-grade school transferred out between September - when the new policies went into place - and December, documents show.

Some parents sought out the school because it's strict, but think it's gone overboard.

"I wanted the discipline and the structure because my son does have a behavior problem," said one mom, who is in the process of transferring her son. "But they suspended him for 22 days."

Some parents and former staffers charge the strict rules fall hardest on special-needs students.

Vanessa Herrar said her fifth-grade son got in trouble for copying math down from the board too slowly, even though he has dyslexia.

"It takes [Jaleel] longer to do some things," she said.

Jaleel, 11, has had detention countless times and has been suspended for roughly 10 days since September, Herrar said. "[Each time] he's backed up an additional day of knowledge," she said.

Detentions have declined since the strict policy first took effect, and there has been an easing of some rules, said Principal Tom Kaiser, who rejected the idea there was a special education problem.

He said he wouldn't apologize for rules that keep the school operating smoothly for kids who arrive there reading far below grade level.

"We're going to teach our kids how to read," said Kaiser. "There were a lot of disruptions to class and a lot of disruptions to learning. We are in a turnaround year."

rmonahan@nydailynews.com



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/02/25/2010-02-25_say_bklyn_schools_got_too_many_rules.html#ixzz0gZKHCYwy

Bk'lyn charter school iron rule

Comments: 3

Detention center over minor raps

Last Updated: 11:49 AM, February 25, 2010

Posted: 4:05 AM, February 25, 2010

A Brooklyn charter's disciplinary system is more like the big house than the schoolhouse, says parents of children there.

The furor at Achievement First Endeavor in Fort Greene erupted when the new principal, Tom Kaiser, implemented a detention-heavy policy in September for infractions such as poor posture and walking out of line in the hallways, parents charge.

They claim the learning environment became a boot camp, with students racking up 100 detentions a day.

"The kids feel like they can't really say nothing, like they're in prison," said Gorlicia Thomas, who has two kids in the school. "They don't want to go to school because they don't know what to say or what to do, because the simplest thing gets them in trouble."

Paul Martinka

Paul Martinka

sports_story_lower sports_page quigo_lower 1482096 871776 440 225 * -- Several of the middle-school students said they had gotten in trouble for talking in class even when they were trying to assist one of their classmates.

School officials said they loosened some of the rules after parents complained.

They said that most students had responded well to the school's high expectations, and that 90 percent of parents who attended recent meetings rated the school favorably.

"We have lots of parents who are wildly positive of having the discipline system," said school spokeswoman Lesley Redwine.

Among them is Paul Breece, whose 11-year-old daughter attends the school.

"I know it's a little inconvenient for the children and parents, but if you set up the rules, then you got to follow them," he said. "I'm 100 percent for it. Anything to keep the kids out of trouble is good."

Meanwhile, a new report by the city's Independent Budget Office said charter schools got between 2 and 18 percent less funding per student than traditional public schools did in the 2008-09 school year.

While traditional schools got $16,678 per student in public money last year, charters housed in public spaces received nearly $305 less per child.

Charter schools that rely on private facilities received more than $3,000 less per student.

yoav.gonen@nypost.com



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/charter_school_iron_rule_KhNQ1nlKsVA74uPmA9sNIP#ixzz0gZVU0B2P


Eva Moskowitz has special access to Schools Chancellor Klein - and support others can only dream of



Juan Gonzalez - News
Thursday, February 25th 2010, 4:00 AM
Schools Chancellor Joel Klein often lauds a small group of Harlem
charter schools founded by former City Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz.

But few New Yorkers are aware of the access Moskowitz has to the
chancellor or the special support he has bestowed on her program,
whose four schools enroll just 1,300 of the city's more than 1 million
public school students.

Since Moskowitz launched her first Harlem Success Academy in August
2006, Klein has attended at least 13 events for her schools, including
several fund-raisers and private meetings with her, 125 e-mails
between them show.

The e-mails, obtained by the Daily News under a Freedom of Information
request, provide a glimpse into the close relationship - one that
would make most principals green with envy.

They show that in addition to Klein's visits, Moskowitz:

- Secured the chancellor's help last year in landing a $1 million
donation from a private Los Angeles foundation.

- Got Klein to intervene on her behalf in clashes she had with his
subordinates.

- Boasted to him of organizing parent "armies" to advocate for Mayor
Bloomberg's educational policies - and of flooding politicians with
thousands of pro-charter school postcards.

The News requested e-mails pertaining to the efforts of Harlem Success
to get more space in school buildings. The space issue is contentious
in many city neighborhoods, and Moskowitz may be the best-known
advocate of more public space for charters.

The e-mails clearly show Moskowitz had Klein's ear on the issue, even
complaining to him about his aides.

"Dilly dalling [sic] bureaucrats don't want to confront principals,"
she wrote in June 2008. This was after a top school official refused
to allocate Harlem Success Academy 2 an additional classroom in East
Harlem's Public School 7.

"I still am short rooms and zoned school is getting more space than
charters," Moskowitz said. "Your people will say am sure i am wrong.
What they will say is simply not true."

"I've talked to John White [the official in charge of allocating
school space] who will call you," Klein wrote back.

A few days later, Moskowitz told Klein that White was not giving her
the space she wanted.

"Really could use your intervention," she wrote. "We need to quickly
and decisively distinguish the good guys from bad. And yes take away
resources from institutions that are harming children and give to
those who are truly putting children first."

Not long afterward, the problem was apparently solved. "Help on space
much appreciated," Moskowitz wrote.

Asked about her e-mails, Moskowitz said it is her job to advocate for
her schools.

"I don't just quietly accept what is dished out to our parents and
what I believe are unfair allocations of space that hurt my schools,"
she said.

At one point, she told Klein city Education Department policy kept her
from getting enough mailing lists of public school kids for a
marketing campaign for her charters.

"We need to be able to mail 10-12 times to elementary and pre-k
families" Moskowitz wrote.

Five days later, Michael Duffy, the head of Klein's charter school
division, wrote her:

"The Chancellor asked me [to] give you an update on where things stand
with getting mailing labels to you and other charter schools."

Duffy was trying to "overcome the obstacles" of "privacy laws," he
said, to make available all the labels Moskowitz wanted.

Klein spokesman David Cantor acknowledged the Moskowitz request led to
a change in policy to provide more mailing lists.

"But it didn't only have to do with Harlem Success," he said. "Several
charter schools were asking to be able to send mailings to families in
their districts."

In a Jan. 11, 2009, e-mail, Moskowitz outlined her plans to build an
advocacy network with other charter schools.

"What you are doing is so important," Klein responded. "Your charter
colleagues are miles behind."

Since August 2006, the chancellor has attended several parent meetings
at Harlem Success; two lottery drawings for its applicants; two poker
night fund-raisers for the network at a Manhattan W hotel; an auction
at Sotheby's of artwork by Harlem Success children, and several
private breakfast meetings with Moskowitz.

"Klein hasn't been to our school in more than five years," said one
principal of a high-achieving Manhattan public high school. "I've
never had breakfast with him."

"The chancellor meets with several principals, charter school leaders
and other N.Y.C. school operators just as often or more," Cantor said.

Cantor pointed to Geoffrey Canada, who operates two acclaimed Harlem
Children's Zone charter schools, and to Richard Kahan, who runs the
Urban Assembly network of public schools, as examples.

A spokesman for Harlem Children's Zone said Klein had visited its
schools "maybe two or three times in the past six years."

Kahan said his network, which has existed for more than a decade and
operates 22 schools, has had "maybe a dozen visits" from Klein.

The e-mails also show Klein appealed to Los Angeles billionaire Eli
Broad to fund Harlem Success, helping Moskowitz get $1 million from
Broad's foundation.

"Can't thank you enough for your support," she wrote Klein after
getting the money last year.

"We plan to open our last 3 in Harlem in august 2010 and then move to
Bronx," she added. "With 27 charters in Harlem [counting other
non-Harlem Success charter schools] we will have market share and will
have fundamentally changed the rules of the game."

jgonzalez@nydailynews.com

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

"Separate and Unequal: Whites in the front door, blacks in the back door" now in the Village Voice


Dr. Pedro Noguera, a professor of education at NYU's Steinhardt school, and the author of The Trouble With Black Boys: And Other Reflections on Race, Equity and the Future of Public Education, thinks it's problematic to be segregating kids from such a young age: "When you send young kids to school where the racial lines are so stark, there is the process of saying there is something fundamentally different about us, which is why we can't be together.
"Some towns, because they are homogenous, their inability to create integrated schools is limited, simply by the fact that there is nobody else there," he says. "That's not the case in New York City. What we have here is really Plessy at work: separate, without even being equal—but very much separate.">
--------------------------

The Village Voice
Inside a Divided Upper East Side Public School
Whites in the front door, blacks in the back door
By Steven Thrasher
February 23, 2010
If you're a white student and you arrive at the public elementary school building on 95th Street and Third Avenue, you'll probably walk through the front door. If you're a black student, you'll probably come in through the back.
It's a very New York kind of school facility: two completely different elementary schools sharing the same space.
The boxy, utilitarian structure was built in 1959 to house P.S.198, named after Isador and Ida Straus to commemorate the Congressman and Macy's department store owner and his wife, who both died in the 1912 sinking of the Titanic.
Since 1988, the building has shared space with another school, in a tradition that has rapidly increased under the reformist scheme of Mayor Mike Bloomberg.
In this case, it's the Lower Laboratory School for Gifted Education (P.S.77) that has been given space in the old Straus building—including the part that contains the front door.
Lower Lab is mostly composed of white students (69 percent) and Asian children, who are driven in from all over Manhattan.
Straus is zoned, which means it has to serve any child from the local neighborhood. For that reason, it's overwhelmingly Latino (47 percent) and black (24 percent).
Over the main entrance, the old sign for Straus remains, but Straus kids are told to go around to the back of the building.
Even Straus staff members are instructed by the NYPD School Safety Agent at the front door to use the rear entrance.
An African-American attorney, Granville Leo Stevens, who showed up at the front door recently on official Straus business, says he was only "grudgingly" allowed to enter the front door after he complained to the SS agent.
"It's the craziest thing I've ever seen," Stevens says.
The only people welcomed openly to the front entrance of the schoolhouse are very young kids with killer testing skills.
Lower Lab is designated as talented and gifted, and it's open throughout the Department of Education's District 2—which includes all of the Upper East Side and much of Manhattan south of Central Park—but only to youngsters who score high on tests given to them at four years of age.
In return for the high marks, the privileged kids of Lower Lab not only never have to sit in classes with the Straus children, they don't even have to mix with them on the way to school.
By 8 a.m., except for a few stragglers, the local kids walking on their way to Straus—some holding hands with parents—have all trudged up 95th Street, entered a gate, crossed a schoolyard, and disappeared into the back entrance of the building.
And that's when the other kids start showing up. Classes for Lower Lab start later—at 8:30—so at about 8 a.m., the automobiles start to arrive: Black Mercedes sedans, town cars, and taxis pull up to the curb at the front door, depositing white children onto the sidewalk. At one point, on a recent morning, there were so many black SUVs backed up that it looked like a head of state was stopping by before heading to the U.N.
Lower Lab parents often get out of their cars to walk their children the last few feet to the front door. Mom and Dad wear well-tailored jackets and suits. Several children's coats are adorned with lift tags, suggesting a weekend ski trip. And many of the Lower Lab kids arrive with musical instruments slung over their shoulders. (Lower Lab has an instrumental musical education program; Straus does not.)
Inside, the building is not divided neatly in half for the two schools. They share floors, and a Lower Lab classroom might sit right next to a Straus classroom.
There are areas that both schools share. In these spaces—hallways, for example—an emphasis has been placed on harmony: The hallways have been given names like "Respect Avenue," "Understanding Street," and "Unity Avenue."
Except for these nods to cooperation, you see signs of the division between the two schools everywhere. In a hallway, on a recent morning, there was a five-gallon water bottle for soliciting funds for Haiti disaster relief—but only from Straus people. A large bulletin board reads, "We are All Connected," and graphically connects pictures of all the teachers, assistants, and administrators—of just Lower Lab.
On a wall of "Golden Rule Avenue," there's a display of "position papers" written by a class of Straus fifth-graders. The illustrated title pages demonstrate how earnest 10-year-olds can be.
"Eat Healthy! It's good for you." "The Damaging Effects of Alcohol."
Another, "No Smoking!," features the declaration that smoking "Damages teeth!
Damages chin! [Makes a] Hole in throat! [Makes you] Lose fingers!" It's accompanied by matching drawings of finger amputation, face mutilation, and even a tracheotomy—the horrors of each rendered for maximum effect in the hand of a child using Magic Marker.
If only these earnest young moralizers were so passionate about classroom order.
"They are good children, they really are," a fifth-grade Straus teacher says as she fights a continuing battle to keep things under control. "But I have to get them to listen," she adds, her voice rising as she turns back toward her chattering flock, giving them the evil eye.
Throughout Straus, the biggest challenge of having almost 30 kids in a room seems to be controlling the chaos. Over a 40-minute period, a science teacher was observed asking her children more than 30 times to quiet down as she tried to teach a lesson about earthquakes. She scolded them and gave them disapproving looks. The students responded by staring at the floor, looking ashamed (or at least pretending to be).
Seconds later, some students tuned out the earthquake lesson and began a discussion of Nintendo DS.
The modern elementary school classroom doesn't really seem to help the situation. Gone are the rows of individual desks of yesteryear. Today's classrooms look more like the kindergartens of the past, with children sitting on carpeting or together at large tables. It's all very conducive to chatty conversation and not paying attention. The students of Straus spend nearly the entire day in groups on the floor or huddled together at tables with friends.
In this particular class, most of the students are Latino and black, and a few are recent arrivals from China. There's one white kid—and she seems utterly oblivious of her minority status.
The teacher is a stern woman whose commute can last up to two hours each way. Teaching is her second career, and she obviously has a love for it.
In the middle of a lesson, her students' chatter gets too loud. She stops speaking, and turns off the lights. First, she admonishes "those of you who don't want to learn, who are holding others back." Then she calls out another equally disruptive group: "For those of you who think you're all that, may I remind you that you still have something to learn."
In the constant battle, the teacher is always fighting on two fronts: There are those who talk because they're poor students and can't sit still in a classroom, and then there are those who interrupt because they're smart and bored.
One student from the latter group—we'll call her "Doreen"—can be as distracting as one of the troublemakers. Her intelligence shines above her peers. While her classmates are gradually starting to read simple chapter books by authors like Beverly Cleary, she's already plowing through the Twilight trilogy.
But for all her intelligence, Doreen is as likely as anyone else to disrupt the class: She's quick to get bored, and she's not especially modest about being the best. When the teacher calls out "those of you who think you're all that," her tablemate—we'll call her "Gwen"—rolls her eyes and looks at Doreen.
"She's talking about you," says Gwen.
Doreen sighs. "I think I'm all that, because I am."
"Well, why do you have to brag about it?"
"Because I am the best."
"Yeah, but if I got a 100 on a math test and you got a 90, I wouldn't act like all that and make you feel bad."
"But I got the 100, and you got the 90," Doreen sighs. "She never gets a 100," she says in an aside about Gwen.
"Be quiet, ladies!," the teacher yells, the lesson interrupted yet again.
The teacher desperately wants the Doreens of the class to do well: She is noticeably tougher on the bright kids who she knows have the intelligence but lack the discipline they'll need in the higher grades.
As a Latina in the New York City school system, Doreen's odds of finishing high school are about 50 percent. The chances that Doreen will get into a top public high school are low. Latino students make up almost 40 percent of the school system, but at premier city high schools, they are pretty rare: 8.2 percent at Brooklyn Tech, 7.7 percent at Bronx Science, 2.8 percent at Stuyvesant.
Most of the Latino children who will go to these top schools are already enrolled in talented and gifted schools—not schools like Straus. The odds are greater that a bright girl like Doreen will drop out of high school than make it to college.
Meanwhile, the odds are very different at Lower Lab. At the very least, Lower Lab kids will usually go to the NYC Lab School for Collaborative Studies. Many, whose parents paid hundreds or thousands of dollars in tutoring fees for their kindergarten entrance exam, will benefit from similar training to get them into even more prestigious high schools.
It's hard to get to know Lower Lab too well: Administrators don't make it very easy even for parents of prospective pupils to observe the school. The process of getting one of the coveted 56 seats begins in October each year, a full 11 months before the first day of class.
Even a tour can't be had until you've aced the kindergarten entrance exam. According to Lower Lab's website, only 200 tours are given a year, and "qualifying families will be asked to present a qualifying letter during the tour. We kindly request that families who did not qualify for our Kindergarten or First Grade T[alented] and G[ifted] program refrain from requesting a tour as space is limited." The site refers to pre-K and kindergarten classes that don't require testing as "Non-Talented and Gifted Programs."
And in case you get any ideas that Mom and Dad might want to decide together on whether or not Lower Lab is the right fit, forget it: "Tours will be available to only one parent or guardian per qualifying family."
(School officials were just as uncooperative with Voice requests for visits, interviews, or even e-mailed responses to questions.)
From a distance, at least, it appears as if, despite being under the same roof as Straus, the children of Lower Lab are living in a completely different world. It's not just that they show up in fancy cars and wear better clothes. Nor is it even that the equipment seems newer in their classrooms, and that the science lab makes Straus's look barren by comparison. (It does.)
But, as one teacher put it, you can see the message taking hold that the children are already receiving about their station in life: "These children are babies—they're four years old—when we start separating them! When you tell them from such a young age, '
“You are more than, and you are less than,'—when you tell them 'You are gifted,' and 'You are not,' they get the message."
To hear the staff of Straus tell it, the teachers of Lower Lab—who have exclusive use of the front door—have gotten the message that they're special, too.
"Some of those teachers, they think that because their children are 'gifted,' that makes them better teachers," says one teacher at Straus. "But why? They've already selected out the highest-achieving kids. They're easy to teach. We have to take anyone who walks in. We have to bring kids to the table."
Teachers at Lower Lab also deal with children sitting in groups, who are no doubt just as tempted to slip into conversations. But the teachers in Lower Lab have a major advantage: They have an adult- to-student ratio half that of Straus's.

It's very noticeable when there's an aide or reading specialist present in a Straus class: The teacher has a much easier time keeping kids quiet than when he or she is on their own.
Being alone is never a problem for teachers in Lower Lab. Each has a full-time teaching
assistant in the room. That's twice as much help with students who tend to bring fewer problems to the classroom to begin with. Lower Lab teachers don't have to deal so much with children who live in poverty (9 percent of Lower Lab children receive free or reduced lunch, compared to 73 percent of Straus). The rate of special education is lower (13 percent of Lower Lab to 19 percent of Straus). Even the English language isn't an issue for Lower Lab: Straus has 45 English language learners. Lower Lab? Zero.
And yet all Lower Lab classrooms are staffed with a full-time assistant teacher, paid for by a robust and powerful PTA.
The differences between the PTAs of Straus and Lower Lab may be the most stark of all. The Straus PTA is described as "almost nonexistent," "not much to talk about," and "well-meaning, butnot very powerful" by several people. One parent (incorrectly) thought Straus didn't even have a PTA.
The idea of a fundraiser for the Straus PTA is a bake sale (selling Baked Lays and other "healthy" snacks, that is). Meanwhile, Lower Lab's idea of a fundraiser is an auction. In the 2006–2007 school year, the annual auction brought in $166,289. That same year (the last for which public records are available), the Lower Lab PTA took in more than a quarter of a million dollars, and reported $424,868 in total assets.
The organization also encourages each family to donate at least $950 a year to their child's public education via a direct appeal.
It's African-American History Month, and the Straus fifth-graders are marching up "Understanding Street" to the combination library and computer lab.
Both schools maintain their own labs. Straus's isn't bad at all, and seems well-supplied with flat-screen Macs—it's questionable how much the children retain, though, as each class gets only an hour a week of computer time.
Students find a list of famous black Americans on each Mac. The teacher tells them to pick one to write an essay about, with a few caveats: "No athletes, and no entertainers."
"I know!" one child exclaims. "I'm going to do Martin Luther King!" "And no Martin Luther King," the teacher says. "Awww," goes the chorus. "But I already know about him!" "Exactly," she says. "Time to learn about someone new."
"What about Jay-Z?" "Is he an entertainer?" the teacher asks so sternly that the normally talkative child doesn't respond. "Mohammed Ali?" another child asks. "What did he do?" the exasperated teacher asks. "He was a—boxer, it says." "Is that a sport?" "Oh, yeah."
The teacher moves around the room, trying to help the students pick a subject and begin their research. One child is told he can't write about President Obama, because they've already learned too much about him, too. A lazy boy picks bell hooks. He's surprised to discover that she's a woman, let alone a feminist scholar: "I don't care. Her name starts with 'B,' and I don't want to scroll down anymore," he says, looking at the alphabetized list. "The teacher said we can't do anyone cool. This sucks."
Doreen, hearing about the prohibition on athletes or entertainers, types "boring African-Americans" into Google to find a subject.
The rebellious kids are not the ones that most worry the teacher and the librarian. It's the 10-year-olds who seem to know absolutely nothing about a computer, and are more than halfway through their fifth-grade year. One student can't find the period on her keyboard; another child doesn't know how to use a Web browser.
"How many of you have a computer at home?" the librarian asks. About a third don't raise their hands.
Getting their hands on keyboards for only an hour a week makes it hard for the teacher to make the students master and retain their "prior knowledge," a phrase the teachers in Straus repeatedly use.
Teachers seem confident about teaching their kids—getting them to retain and build upon it is another story.
Doreen's search for "boring African-Americans" hasn't yielded too many results. She has gotten it into her mind that she wants to research "that doctor who separated the conjoined twins." She thinks he's male, so she puts "African-American male" into Google, which generates banner ads that the 10-year-old girl probably shouldn't be looking at. (She finally discovers she's seeking Dr. Ben Carson.)
The part-time aide that sometimes helps out is with another class right now. Working in tandem, it's hard for the teacher and the librarian—by themselves—to attend to all of these kids, help each one individually, and prevent them from ending up on the wrong websites. They barely have time to help the children navigate the computers, let alone deal with the content of what they are actually supposed to be researching and writing.

Even the ones with computers at home, the staff knows, are more apt to play games on them than practice their word processing skills. And, come next week, they'll be starting from scratch again with some of the kids, as if this week's computer lesson never happened.
It's 6:30 p.m. in the school cafeteria, and the Lower Lab PTA is about to come to order. Except for one parent, everyone is white. Before the meeting begins, member Patrick Sullivan regales the people assembled with tales of his evening the night before.

Sullivan is Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's appointee to the Panel for Education Policy. The PEP, made up of five members appointed by the Borough Presidents and eight by Mayor Bloomberg, is the governing body of the Department of Education. Sullivan casts one of just 13 votes that control the entire school system of 1.1
million children.
The night before, the PEP had voted to close 19 struggling high schools. Each will be replaced with multiple schools, creating shared campuses like the one Straus and Lower Lab occupy. The vote came after a marathon nine-hour hearing, marked by racial tension.
Sullivan came off as the folk hero of the night. He stood up for the NAACP when testimony was cut off, to great applause from the crowd. He was one of the five dissenting votes against shutting down the schools.
In an interview with the Voice, Sullivan says that he was sympathetic to many of the protests that the mostly black and Latino parents were waging at the PEP about unequal treatment. But when asked about the inequities between the two schools in the building where his own children are students —where he is on the PTA—he didn't seem to view inequality the same way.
Does he think, for example, that there is a negative effect from having two racially segregated schools under the same roof?
"No, I don't think it has an effect," he says.
"[Lower Lab] is a gifted and talented program, and [Straus] isn't," he adds, more at ease talking about the issue in terms of economics than race. "The gifted and talented criteria is a standardized test that, I believe—and I believe many other people believe—unfairly draws from higher-income children and families, because they are better able to prepare for that test."
Sullivan says that he opposes the standardization of test scores for children citywide: "It used to be that the [talented and gifted schools] had different entrance criteria in different parts of the city, which would reflect the economics of the various zones." When the PEP voted to standardize scores, "I opposed it, and I was the only one who voted against it."
In Lower Lab's case, the sifting done by tests has resulted in a black population of just 3.1 percent.
If Sullivan was uncomfortable talking specifically about the racial differences between the two schools sharing a building, many black parents were not—even though they preferred to do it anonymously.
"We know they get better stuff and more money in Lower Lab," said one Straus African-American mother who works as a teaching assistant in a nearby school, "but there's nothing we can do about it." Another black parent, whose child was zoned for Straus, sent her to another school "so she wouldn't be humiliated by having [Lower Lab] in her face."
"Isn't that something?" the parent said. "I can't believe they put up with walking in through the back door."
Reconciling the disparity between what the schools receive is especially hard for the mother of one of the few African-American students who recently graduated from Lower Lab. "For my son and his development, I would have liked to have seen more students who looked like him."
When asked if she felt uncomfortable knowing her son received superior resources to most of the black students in the building, her gratitude outweighed her discomfort: "If I was on the outside, I'd say that that's not fair. But getting to be in the school, with my son there, I was happy to be the beneficiary of those benefits."
She candidly revealed that Lower Lab was a very good bargain for their money: "When you have 28 kids in a class, and you can give $500 or $950 a year, and you can have another teacher in the classroom and cut the ratio in half—I was happy to do it."
One thing that did seem to unsettle her, though, is her feeling that it happened through strong-arming. "The PTA was able to hire more personnel [teaching assistants]. That's circumventing Board of Ed rules. And in the Board of Ed, they are aware of this. But because the people on our PTA are powerful people, they are able to go out there and get these funds, and got what they wanted."
Another black parent put it more bluntly: "They've set up a private school within a public building, where they can raise money for their own kids, and their kids only."
It's the 99th school day of the year, and there is much to celebrate in the fifth-grade class of Isador and Ida Straus.
Not only is it the Friday before winter recess, but the class is having a lunchtime party (technically, a "cultural celebration"). The teacher has set up an elaborate chafing-dish buffet. Together with some of the children's parents, she has prepared a smorgasbord of foods to celebrate a smorgasbord of causes, including birthdays, Valentine's Day, the Chinese New Year, African-American History Month, and the final day of school.
Once the food is set and warming up, she returns to the carpet, where the children have been reading aloud When Marian Sang, a book about Marian Anderson.
"You see, children?" says the teacher, after Anderson has defeated Jim Crow to become an opera singer. "Marian experienced hardships, but she got over them. Every group has gone through hardships, and has gotten over them—black people, Latinos, Jews, Asians."
"Even white people?" one child asks his neighbor.
The food is served, and a table full of boys begins digging in. "This food is off the shizzle!" proclaims a bespectacled African-American boy. He and one of his best friends, a South Asian kid with a winning smile, are actually free to talk without being shushed for a change. They're arguing over who is taller, and whether or not hair should count in height. (The boy with the trim Afro thinks it shouldn't; the boy with the voluminous poof thinks it should.)
At the next table, a group of girls tries to trick adults in the room into revealing their ages by asking them what Chinese sign they were born under, then looking it up on the zodiac.
It's a festive mood, even though all the adults in the building cannot wait for 2:20 to arrive and their vacation to begin. With a snow day earlier in the week, the children have been unable to go out on the playground ever since, and they're wound especially tightly.
Despite the teacher's ebullience about the coming vacation—she is literally dancing at the thought—the hard work and money it has taken to put on this party shows how much she loves these children. She paid for the chafing dishes, and the food she has prepared out of her own pocket. Like all New York City teachers, she works with a budget of $150 a year—about 83 cents a day—to provide for all the supplies she'll need.
Unlike her colleagues at the other school in the building, there will be no reimbursement from the PTA. No auction is going to provide her with extra books, or a music teacher, or an assistant. Anything extra—like the food she cooked, after teaching all day and commuting four hours—is on her dime.
Once all of the children have been fed, there is still plenty of food. The teacher invites lots of other people to come in. Staff members and other teachers come on by. It seems like everyone is passing through.
Everyone, that is, except people from the other school in the same building.
The schools' PTAs exist on different orders of magnitude: Their teachers don't seem to interact at all. But what about the kids of the two schools? How do they interact with each other? Though they enter through separate doors, do they play on the playground?
Can the "talented" and "non-talented" get along during recess?
The truth is, it never comes up, because they never, ever play together.
From arriving at different times, to having separate lunch times in the cafeteria, to having different recesses in the yard, the two schools just don't interact. They co-exist, as one parent put it, "like oil and water."
Dr. Pedro Noguera, a professor of education at NYU's Steinhardt school, and the author of The Trouble With Black Boys: And Other Reflections on Race, Equity and the Future of Public Education, thinks it's problematic to be segregating kids from such a young age: "When you send young kids to school where the racial lines are so stark, there is the process of saying there is something fundamentally different about us, which is why we can't be together.
"Some towns, because they are homogenous, their inability to create integrated schools is limited, simply by the fact that there is nobody else there," he says. "That's not the case in New York City. What we have here is really Plessy at work: separate, without even being equal—but very much separate."
In other parts of the country, cities and counties and states struggle with the inequalities that arise between schools that benefit or suffer from their geography—public schools in wealthy areas generally provide a better educational experience than public schools in poor areas. School districts have always wrestled with ways to minimize these differences, like how money is spent, how children are routed, and how teachers are allocated.
In New York, these striking differences have nothing to do with geography—not when two public schools can offer such unequal environments within the same building. And yet, the mayor's plan, embodied in the rush to close schools and replace them with even more multiple institutions, only seems to be exacerbating these differences.
Concerned about the lack of access for talented programs in Straus, the Department of Education is addressing the situation. Patrick Sullivan says the DOE will be starting a gifted program within Straus this fall, beginning with a kindergarten class.
Now, the zoned children will have the option of getting into a talented program, instead of competing with children districtwide. A girl like Doreen might have the chance to be in a gifted class, without competing against rich families who can pay for tutors.

Teachers might not have to work as hard to accommodate their slowest and fastest students in the same class.
But the decision is not being universally heralded.
"Why on earth would [Straus] need to have a gifted class, if there's a gifted school already in the building?" asked one mother. "They say they're doing it to make the school more 'attractive,' but are they doing it just to keep [Lower Lab] segregated?"

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

How Much Attention Should We Pay to AFT?

From Mike Antonucci at EIA: http://www.eiaonline.com/archives/20100222.htm

February 22, 2010

1) How Much Attention Should We Pay to AFT? The American Federation of Teachers is often treated as an also-ran when it comes to national school labor issues, even on these pages. Its professed membership of 1.4 million leaves it less than half the size of NEA, but even those numbers tell less than half the story.

The legacy of Al Shanker and some reform-minded statements by current AFT President Randi Weingarten have lent the smaller union a reputation for being less hidebound than NEA. Whether that is actually the case I'll leave for others to debate, but AFT's message benefits from having almost all of its major locals in large cities and media centers: New York City, Chicago, DC, Philadelphia, Houston, Boston, Miami, Detroit, Dallas, Baltimore, and a share of Los Angeles and San Francisco with NEA. In all those places, when AFT speaks, the press listens. What isn't widely known is the union is virtually non-existent outside of those cities - except in New York State.

The U.S. Department of Labor disclosure reports for AFT and its affiliate, the New York State United Teachers, reveal some surprising figures. The national union lists seven different membership categories that total only 889,347 members. Since even this number includes non-voting members, where the other 500,000 claimed members come from is anyone's guess.

NYSUT's report lists four different membership categories that total 587,297 (including almost 173,000 retirees). So if these figures have any meaning at all, they indicate that two-thirds of AFT members reside in a single state - New York.

With such a situation, it was inevitable that in places other than New York AFT's structure would place most power in the hands of its locals. It also means national AFT has a lot less power, relative to NEA, to influence events and policies in its locals. For better or worse, the ideas Weingarten espouses as AFT president have fewer practical implications than when she espoused them as president of New York City's United Federation of Teachers.

There is an exception. When AFT's locals have financial or other internal problems, the national union has the means to exert its authority. The Detroit Federation of Teachers, for example, is a mess, and owes AFT $681,000 in back dues that are more than six months overdue. But there is little evidence that AFT has the stomach for advancing a national agenda (whatever it might be) through internal pressure on its locals.

The lesson of Miami is instructive. It is now almost seven years since the FBI raided the offices of the United Teachers of Dade, leading to the ouster of Pat Tornillo, the establishment of an AFT administratorship and the eventual election of a new slate of local officers. The gross corruption ended, but the petty infighting continued. UTD still owes its state affiliate and AFT more than $6 million in back dues and loans stemming from Tornillo's days. And no one is accusing UTD of being excessively collaborative.

After such a scandal, AFT had unprecedented power and authority to create any kind of local it wanted in Miami - and it created one virtually indistinguishable from the rest.

Well, you might say, maybe that's the kind of local the Miami members wanted. Exactly. So why does it matter what Weingarten wants?