Mayor de Blasio selected a well-respected educator with decades of experience in the NYC school system, who, in turn promoted another long time NYC educator as her deputy and one of the senior high school principals to a key role. The mayor and the chancellor introduced the new hires at a principal’s meeting of the CSA, the supervisors’ union, and, announced principal candidates must have at least seven years of New York City experience to be eligible.
The mayor is currently examining the rushed decision of the prior administration to co-locate charter schools scheduled to open in September, 2014, in public school buildings.
Other major structural decisions will be on the table:
Should schools continue to be organized in the current system, non-contiguous, affinity clusters, called networks, geographic, contiguous districts, or some other configuration?
Principals are sharply divided with the principals who are satisfied with the network structure arguing to retain the structure. The teacher union supports a return to geographic districts led by a superintendent.
The current system, almost sixty networks is made of about 25 schools per network. The network vision statement, number and location of schools can be found here. Network leaders are evaluated annually by Progress Reports and Quality Review data, principal satisfaction surveys and the evaluations are public – see 2011-12 network evaluations here. The Department defends the network structure here as well as defining the roles and integration of networks/superintendents.
The Department also employees 32 Community Superintendents and 9 high school superintendents, the superintendents are required by state law and are the rating officer for principals; however, day-to-day school support is the responsibility of the networks.
A major flaw in the system, according to the critics of the network structure, is that principals are basically freed from day-to-day supervision. From the union perspective this leads to endless abuses, large numbers of grievances that should have been resolved by a phone call from a superintendent. The abuses at PS 106Q, the NY Post calls , “the School of No,” is a prime example, the absence of a superintendent with the authority to influence day-to-day operations resulted in too many instances of both abusive and ineffective principals. The only actual “supervision” are the data – the student test core-based Progress Report and the one-day Quality Review walk-through.
On the other hand principals cringe at the thought of the micro-managing superintendents of yore. “His office would storm through my building directing me to do this and that – it was stultifying – decisions must be made by teachers and principals at the school – not from some distant office. We know what’s best for our students.”
Passions are high.
Continuing the practice of principals’ “evaluating” the level of support from networks could be expanded to the role of superintendents, as well as involving teachers in the process – if collaboration is a goal, perhaps frame assessment questions around the level of collaboration at both the school and the district level.
Other principals, in transfer high schools, in schools with total English language learner populations, are currently in the same networks – schools with similar challenges, it would sense to continue to cluster these schools.
This is not as headline-grabbing as co-location of charter schools; however, the decision will impact every school in the city
How will the new administration deal with School Closings, School Choice and Progress Reports?
School closings is not a Bloomberg invention, the Department has been closing schools since the late eighties, almost all low performing high schools, Andrew Jackson, Erasmus, Eastern District, George Washington, Taft, Theodore Roosevelt and others were all closed and replaced by small high schools before Bloomberg. Why no screams from the union and the public? Teachers who were displaced from closing schools either ended up in the replacement small schools or in another school. The current system of forcing teachers to find their own job or idling away their time moving from school to school in the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) pool only began in 2005. The Bloomberg/Klein regency ratcheted up the school closings to include elementary and middle schools.
In the 80′s and 90′s the schools chosen for closing were among the lowest performing in the state. The Bloomberg/Klein policy closed schools as rapidly as possible – closing some schools that clearly were on the way to turnaround, Park West had already adopted the John Hopkins Talent Development Model and the state wrote a glowing report – too bad – the Manhattan location was too valuable and too much in demand by the small high school advocacy organizations.
Federal law and dense state regulations require that schools are identified for intervention – focus schools (bottom 15%), priority schools (bottom 10%) and persistently lowest achieving (bottom 5%). The state uses an algorithm – a Diagnostic Tool for School and District Effectiveness – site visits to the 700 schools in the focus, priority and PLA groupings. If a school fails to show progress the state must intervene – with school closing as the last step. This year the legally required time frame has passed – no schools will be closed in 9/14.
The Progress Report, the A – F grading system does not provide any surprises – most of the school grade is based on test scores and/or credit accumulation – the “C” “D” and “F” schools cluster in high poverty neighborhoods and the “A” and “B” schools in the more middle class neighborhoods. The Reports contain considerable disaggregated test score data – not helpful to a parent – and usually tells the school what it already knows; “smarter” principals target particular cohorts of kids to increase their grade (the extra credit categories), management of data over increasing instructional skills.
If you abandon the A – F grades, what is the replacement? What metrics do you use? Do you decrease the achievement emphasis and increase the growth emphasis? Under that system a low achieving, high growth school in Brownsville might get an “A” and a high achieving, low growth fully screened school a “C.” imagine the screams … Interestingly the state has not released data on teacher evaluation scores by district wealth, i. e., do high wealth districts have a higher percent of “highly effective” teachers and do low wealth districts a higher percent of “ineffective” or “developing” teachers?
Complex decisions that are better discussed openly – the best decisions are made in a transparent environment.
There is a tendency – more than a tendency – an obsession to rid the system of everything “Bloomberg,” without an assessment of the value of the idea/plan/initiative. Let’s not fool ourselves: in 2001, the year of Bloomberg’s election there were many, many high schools with graduation rates in the 30 – 40% range using the low skilled Regents Competency Diploma. As an example Taft had five, not 5%, five kids who graduated with a Regents diploma. The closing and the conversion of large high schools to “small schools of choice” has resulted in higher graduation rates and larger percentages of kids moving on to college.
The MDRC Study supports that “small schools of choice” (SSC) are showing better results that the large high schools. (non SSC high schools).
...reports steady improvement across many indicators of high school performance and engagement, including attendance, credit accumulation, graduation, and college readiness rates. The paper highlights stubborn gaps in performance as well—between groups of students, and between current achievement levels and the aspirations that the public and school leaders have for New York City high schools.
Multiple schools in a building present management issues, commonly four, five or six schools in a building may also have three or four support organizations, leading to endless conflicts. Other schools have well organized campus councils with a wide range of campus-wide activities. SSC allow for personalization, teachers and administrations get to know every kid – kids don’t get lost as they commonly do in a 2-3,000 student school.
The “choice” element of Small Schools of Choice means that if you live a block away from a school you have no better chance of attending the school than any other kid in the city. The SSC program is the antithesis of a community school; schools should be part of a community – not an alien island in a neighborhood. Every school should have a geographic zone; neighborhood schools should give neighborhood kids a priority, as well as reserving seats for other kids.
The Bloomberg gamebook has created over two hundred screened programs – principals select kids – skimming the more able kids – the “3″ and “4″ kids further disadvantaging the remainder of schools. Scholar’s Academy, a 1200-seat fully screened 6-12 schools, located in Rockaway, is 39% white, 23% Asian and 15% Hispanic with less than 1% Special Education, other schools in Rockaway are all Black and Hispanic with between 15 % and 25% Special Education – you can find similar configurations around many screened programs.
de Blasio will have a major decision – does he continue supporting schools/program that segregate students by race, ethnic and ability, or, risk alienating whiter and more active parents by curtailing screened schools?
Hopefully his decisions will be better than his decision today to keep schools open.