The Gentrification of Schools: Creating More “Gifted Schools” Must Not Diminish Schools Serving All Students

School segregation/integration, whether in the elite high schools (Stuyvesant, etc.,), the over 100 screened high schools and middle schools or the elementary school Gifted and Talented programs haunts the educational and political establishment.

The UCLA Civil Rights Project, in a detailed report, found New York City to be one of the most segregated school systems in the nation and the city continues to struggle to address the albatross. Chancellor Carranza was the superintendent in San Francisco and faced a similar issue: a plan to integrate schools; rather than integrating schools the San Francisco plan further segregated schools. “San Francisco Had an Ambitious Plan to Tackle School Segregation. It Made It Worse,”

“Parental choice has not been the leveler of educational opportunity it was made out to be. Affluent parents are able to take advantage of the system in ways low-income parents cannot, or they opt out of public schools altogether. What happened in San Francisco suggests that without remedies like wide-scale busing, or school zones drawn deliberately to integrate; school desegregation will remain out of reach.”

There are no “easy” or obvious answers; gentrification and intense poverty as well as alternatives to public schools, i. e., charter, private and religious schools complicate finding solutions.

In New York City the electeds, advocates, alumni, unions all have entered the fray; all offer “solutions.”

At the top of the agenda the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT), namely, the test to gain acceptance to Stuyvesant, Bronx School of Science, Brooklyn Tech and the five small schools added by Bloomberg.

The entrance examination to the “specialized high schools” is embedded in state law and only a handful of Afro-American students are admitted, in other words, passed the test.

Mayor de Blasio raced ton Albany in the waning days of the session last June and introduced a bill to eliminate the Specialized High School Admittance Test, the de Blasio plan was dead on arrival. The Mayor’s current plan is an enhanced Discovery Program, extensive tutoring of students who fell just below the cut score and admit students who successfully complete the Discovery process.

.The leader of the New York State Assembly will be holding public hearing in May. Corey Johnson, the leader of the New York City Council, and a contender for mayor in 2021 is appointing a commission and has already proposed spinoffs of the Specialized High Schools across the city. The Alumni Associations of the legacy specialized schools have hired high clout lobbyists. A new set of players are heavyweights, Ronald Lauder and Richard Parsons, who have created their own advocacy group, backed by heavy dollars with a set of specific recommendations.

* Double the Number of Specialized High Schools
* Improve the Middle Schools
* Invest in Free SHSAT Prep for Every Student Citywide
* Ask Every 8th Grader to Take the SHSAT
* A Gifted and Talent Program in Every District

These are terrible ideas! The gentrification of schools: “gifted schools” pushing out public schools. All schools should provide education for all students, high achieving, “average” students, “struggling” students as well as students seeking a Career and Technical Education pathway.

WEB DuBois, in 1903 essay coined the term “Talented Tenth,” the Lauder/Parsons plan is in the spirit of De Bois,

“The Negro race, like all races, is going to be saved by its exceptional men. The problem of education, then, among Negroes must first of all deal with the Talented Tenth; it is the problem of developing the Best of this race that they may guide the Mass away from the contamination and death of the Worst, in their own and other races.”

The Lauder/Parsons plan would further segregate schools, this time by academic ability and depress achievement in the remainder of schools; it would create a tale of two school systems.

“Free SHSAT prep for every student” would turn middle schools into test prep mills, antithetical to everything we believe about education.

So, what should we do?

* Align the SHSAT with State Standards, in other words test kids on what is taught in day-to-day classrooms
* Set a numerical quota for each Middle School (based on school size) and select the highest scorers on the revised SHSAT
* Half of all students would be admitted by the traditional method and half by the method described above

The SHSAT is not an intelligence test; in fact, the psychometric approach to defining intelligence has been thoroughly refuted.

Robert Sternberg challenged the psychometric approach to defining intelligence, Sternberg argues,

* Training of intellectual performance must be socio-culturally relevant to the individual
* A training program should provide links between the training and real-world behavior.
* A training program should provide explicit instruction in strategies for coping with novel tasks/situations
* A training program should provide explicit instruction in both executive and non-executive information processing and interactions between the two.
* Training programs should actively encourage individuals to manifest their differences in strategies and styles.

Unfortunately the SHSAT has remained unchanged for almost half a century.

Over a thousand colleges and universities no longer use a test, the SAT or the ACT, it “optional” in many schools and totally abandoned in others.

In the screened middle and high schools we should move to an Education Option-type system. In the first year 25% of students would be admitted by “blind choice,” a lottery of student with achievement in the 15-67-16 (16% more than .5 standard deviations below the mean and 16% .5 standard deviations above the mean) range using combined reading and math scores; the percentage of kids in the “blind choice” group can be increase over time until the student selection process is 50-50.

All schools providing an appropriate education for all student; be they Gifted or Special Education or English Language Learners.

The charter cap must not be raised; we don’t want parents flocking to the equivalent of screened schools to escape public schools.

I believe the result would be far more integrated schools, and far better schools.  You can have schools with Advanced Placement classes and vocational classes in the same school. Heterogeneous classes, classes  kids with disparate reading scores requires different pedagogy, and, there is a ton of research that says heterogeneous classrooms increases academic outcomes for all kids.

Am I hopeful?

We live in a highly politicized world; electeds may put their finger in the air and respond to this electorate, others protecting powerful institutions.

Bills currently pending in the Assembly:

• A02173Relates to admission to a specialized high school in the city of New York
• A03223Relates to establishing the commission on diversity in specialized schools
• A03944Requires the New York city department of education to study and report on students who would likely pass the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test
• A03981Relates to the creation of a pre-specialized high schools admissions test and preparation program

At a Medgar Evers College event a few years ago an Afro-American high school student asked, “Why do I have to go to a white school to get a good education?”

I’m always hopeful.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on the 2020 Census Citizenship Question: Hundreds of Millions of Dollars for New York State in Danger

Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution requires an “enumeration;” a census every ten years,

Representatives … shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons (meaning slaves). The actual Enumeration shall be made … every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct

For the first time since 1950 a citizenship question was added to the census.

The administration budgeted one billion dollars less than requested, and, the major point of contention: a question dealing with citizenship status which could discourage participation in the Census even though the census professional staff ruled the citizenship question inappropriate the Secretary of Commerce included the citizenship question.

The citizenship question was challenged in the federal courts and, in a scathing decision the courts sustained the appellants and ruled the question inappropriate.

Plaintiffs proved at trial that, if the citizenship question is added to the 2020 census questionnaire, they will suffer serious harm in the form of lost political representation, lost federal funding, and degradation of information that is an important tool of state sovereignty.  And at least two of those injuries, the loss of political representation and the degradation of information would be irreparable, without any adequate remedy at law.

 Measured against these standards, Secretary Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census —even if it did not violate the Constitution itself —was unlawful for a multitude of independent reasons and must be set aside. To conclude otherwise and let Secretary Ross’s decision stand would undermine the proposition —central to the rule of law —that ours is a government of law and not of men.” And it would do so with respect to what Congress itself has described as “one of the most critical constitutional functions our Federal Government perform” (Read entire decision here)

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today.  The issues before the court:

Issues: (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act;; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decision maker — including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials — without a strong showing that the decision-maker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Census will determine representation in the House of Representatives, New York State could lose two seats if the undercount is the same as in 2010, and, fifty-five federal programs are determined by population, New York State could lose hundreds of  millions in federal dollars. The State receives 1.6 billion in federal education dollars.

Maya Wiley, an MSNBC contributor and a Professor at the New York School University made a troubling presentation a few weeks ago.

The 2020 Census will be the first on-line Census. It is grossly underfunded and the federal administration in Washington has raised significant concerns for immigrants, legal residents and other vulnerable people. The New School’s Digital Equity Laboratory has been working on a project to support greater collaborative work between libraries, community leaders and city governments in the New York region to support a fair and safe Census.

 The CUNY Mapping Service  lays out the data and the challenges: “low response scores,” “population groups with increased risks of being undercounted,” “households with no computer or inadequate internet access,” by neighborhood.

The Bureau of Census, the advocates and the newly appointed New York City Census Director, Julie Menin are planning to work with libraries, and community organizations, an excellent plan; however, why aren’t schools at the center of the plan?

I e-communicated with Julie Menin, and did receive a thumbs up.

There are 1800 schools, 1.1 million kids and over 100,000 highly motivated teachers and paraprofessionals. Schools have staff members to match the language of their students, and close relationships with families.

Why isn’t the Department of Education at the center of a census outreach plan?

The teacher union is enthusiastic and understands the vital importance; an undercount means loss of jobs and vital services to children and families.

In addition every high school senior must take a course entitled, “Participation in Government,”

This course aims to provide students with opportunities to become engaged in the political process by acquiring the knowledge and practicing the skills necessary for active citizenship. Content specifications are not included, so that the course can adapt to present local, national, and global circumstances, allowing teachers to select flexibly from current events to illuminate key ideas and conceptual understandings. Participation in government and in our communities is fundamental to the success of American democracy.

The course can engage students in census field work across the state, a powerful tool to maximize participation in the census, a powerful activity to involve students in civics, in real live activities.

While the Census is a year away now is the time to create an inclusive plan.

The Specialized High Schools and the admittance test and grades 3-8 Standardized Testing dominate the news cycle while the Census is barely acknowledged.

I hope that State Commissioner Elia instructs her staff to post Census lessons on the EngageNY website as well as instruct school district leaders to provide Census outreach in each and every school in the state.

I am hopeful that Chancellor Carranza will appoint a Census Coordinator, a vital position considering what’s at stake.

Let’s be honest, the citizenship question is a direct assault on “blue” cities and states intended to reduce their political clout by reducing their electoral votes as well as “punishing” them with fewer dollars: the ultimate cynicism

Will the five conservatives on the Court cast “political” votes?  I fear another Bush v Gore, a decision that ignores the rule of law, a decision that tries to entrench political power from the anti-democratic right.

The decision is due in June.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will Governor Cuomo Succeed in Increasing/Eliminating the New York City Charter School Cap?

The New York Post, a pro-charter school daily newspaper reports that Governor Cuomo is pursuing increasing the New York City charter school cap.

Gov. Cuomo on Sunday urged the Legislature to back a new law that would raise the cap to allow more charter schools to open in New York City before the legislative session ends in June.

“We support raising this artificial cap, but the legislature needs to agree as well,” Cuomo senior adviser Rich Azzopardi told The Post.

And, Ray Domanico from the conservative Manhattan Institute follows up with a NY Post op ed, arguing that charter schools raise all boats,

[Charter school] success at creating educational opportunity hasn’t come at the expense of the city’s traditional public schools. Over the last 20 years, as charter schools have grown in the city to the point where they now educate 10 percent of all public-school students, the city’s traditional public schools have seen historical improvement.

Meryl Tisch, the deputy chancellor of SUNY (and former chancellor of the Board of Regents) jumped on the train, also calling for the raising of the New York City cap.

State law sets a statewide cap on the number of charter school and a subcap on the number allotted to New York City. The SUNY Charter Institute approved a number of charter schools at their last meeting reaching the New York City cap.

The cap has been increased twice, each time the increase was included in the state budget. The budget process in New York State is unique; the governor can add non-budgetary items to the budget.  Two convoluted court decisions sustained the right of the governor to add items not germane to the budget, the only power the legislature has is not to approve the budget, not a viable option. .

In the past the governor used the budget to increase the cap; this time he made no efforts to use the budget.

The legislature will return on April 29^th and will adjourn in mid-June, with many outstanding issues; there are twenty-five legislative days remaining in the session. While both houses in the legislature are controlled by Democrats the newly empowered Democratic majority in the Senate is aggressive, and, outspokenly hostile to charters; John Liu, the chair of the New York City Education Committee has been especially negative towards charters

On the Assembly side the new chair of the Education Committee, Michael Benedetto, is a retired New York City teacher.

Marcos Crespo, a Bronx Assembly member, as well as the chair of the Bronx Democratic Party is one of the few Democratic charter school supporters in the Assembly.

Can the pro-charter school folks stir the pot and generate political pressure to increase the cap?

There is a bill, introduced 3/29/19 that, “Requires the state comptroller and the comptroller of the city of New York to coordinate the scheduling and performance of audits of charter schools in the city of New York.”  A bill vigorously opposed by the network charters. Philanthropy is the “dirty little secret,” the charter school networks (Success Academy, etc.,) receive large sums of philanthropic dollars, from hedge funds and national ant-union organizations. For example, Guide Star, the site that give access to the IRS 990 reports lists over 200 million dollars in contributions to the Success Academy Network,  the dollars are not subject to audit.

There aren’t any bills so far to increase the cap.

In 1866 Gideon Tucker, a New York judge, wrote in a decision of a will case: “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session,” and little has changed.

Why didn’t the governor add an increase in the cap to the budget bill?

• The maneuvering for charter school PAC dollars

The charter school political action committees (PACs) have poured dollars into the campaign of Republicans in the Senate – they lost. Where should the PAC dollars go?  The governor’s actions says, “I’m one of your few friends.”

• De Blasio v Cuomo

The de Blasio-Cuomo antipathy is unabated. From the governor’s seat in Albany he is the alpha progressive. At every opportunity he has made life difficult for de Blasio: from budget to space for charter schools to mayoral extensions, nothing has come easily

As perhaps Cuomo is seeking powerful allies in the Assembly

• Marcus Crespo

With the Bronx Borough President term-limited Crespo may be looking at the Bronx Borough President as his next step, and, charter school dollars are as good as anyone else’s dollars.

I believe it is unlikely that Cuomo wants to alienate the UFT, the New York City teacher union. Cuomo and Mulgrew have had a “professional” relationship. After the Supreme Court issued the Janus Decision; the governor quickly issued regulations strengthening union membership rules basically thwarting the impact of Janus. The bill signing took place at UFT headquarters.

Rent regulations expire in New York City on June 15t^h and the Democrats in both houses are seeking sweeping changes, the Assembly, the Senate and the Governor have to agree, and,  if there is no agreement rent control sunsets, totally unacceptable.

The last days in Albany are called “the big ugly;” deals are made, I’ll support this if you support that, no one has a political future if they allow rent control to expire while the real estate industry pours dollars and lobbyists and promises of anonymous independent expenditures. Could the charter school cap get caught up in the last minute deal-making?

The Democratic primary debates begin on June 26^th and 27^th. As candidates fade the next tier of candidates will emerge, are de Blasio, Cuomo and/or Bloomberg possible late entrants?

Presidential politics, deal-making during the “big ugly,” charter school PAC dollars, all impacting the race at the end of the legislative session.

Would charters exchange agree to the “audit” bill in exchange for increasing the cap?  Probably not.

You might say that I’m cynical, why can’t decisions simply be made on their merits?

Somewhere around 15,000 bills will be submitted during the legislative session, and, a few hundred will become law. Legislators concentrate on bills they introduced, aside from the budget, education bills are well down the list.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention that produced our Constitution was a series of compromises, aka, “deal-making.”

I see no enthusiasm in the legislature; unless the governor decides to lean on the legislature; then again, it’s Albany.

The Grades 3-8 Testing Disaster (Yet Again!): Can the Commissioner/Regents Satisfy the Demands of Anti-Testing Folks?

If you happened to be watching TV in the Albany area Monday night and saw the demonstration on the steps of the State Education Building (in the rain) I was one of the guys/gals holding “CorrecttheTest.org” a sign (wearing a the red jacket).

This was a bad week, a really bad week for the commissioner, the state education department and the regents. Last week was the first round of grades 3-8 testing, the English Language Arts (ELA) test and state ed encouraged districts to choose the computer-based testing (CBT) option; a lot less expensive than paper/pencil tests – a computer glitch ensued and thousands of kids had to re-take the test. See SED timelines, numbers of kids impacted and plans going forward here

Regents Rosa, Young and Tilles all expressed outrage, as did the commissioner, at the testing company, Questar/ETS, the Educational Testing Service acquired Questar a year ago. ETS provides the SAT and the AP exams; however, they failed us, and this is the second time the test administration had serious glitches; this is the fourth year of a five year contract. In spite of the “outrage” SED is committed to CBT; whether the Regents member are committed is an open question.

Let’s review some basic questions:

 Why does New York State continue to give annual tests in grades 3-8?

The 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law requires that all students are tested and the feds hold the purse strings – New York State receives $1.6 billion in annual education funding. The 2016 reauthorization of the law, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) continued the annual testing requirement in spite of pushback from teacher organizations. A coalition of civil rights organizations  insisted that annual testing continue in the law,

“Removing the requirement for annual testing would be a devastating step backward, for it is very hard to make sure our education system is serving every child well when we don’t have reliable, comparable achievement data on every child every year,” Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust, said in recent testimony before the Senate education panel. Her group joined 20 civil rights organizations to lobby Congress to keep the requirement to test all children each year in math and ­reading.

 Can’t parents simply opt out of taking the state tests?

In the New York State the answer is yes, and about 20% of parents opt their children out of participating in state tests, the opt outs are concentrated on Long Island, about 50% of families on Long Island opt out, and other more affluent suburban communities; in New York City the opt out numbers are very low and concentrated in a few higher achieving schools.

What if New York State, or, a school or school district decides to not offer the test? Are there sanctions?

The law  leaves the opt out question to the states,

ESSA affirms states’ authority over the policies governing parents “opting” their children out of state standardized tests, but it maintains the requirement that 95 percent of children in each school, as well as 95 percent of students in each subgroup, be tested. The big change from NCLB is that schools will not be subject to federally prescribed corrective action if they fail to meet the 95 percent participation rate. Instead, states will establish their own consequences for schools that fail to meet this requirement.

 SED has been leaning on school districts to provide plans to increase the participation rate, with considerable pushback from opt out parent organizations; from 2017 to 2018 the state opt out rate decreased by 1%.

Can the feds take actions against New York State if the opt out numbers don’t decrease?

A very sensitive question: does New York State law prevail, namely, the parental right to opt out, or, do the feds have a right to withhold federal dollars if a state does not take actions, satisfactory to the feds, to increase participation rates?

New York State is walking a tight rope, urging school districts to increase the participation, without alienating electeds and keeping the feds at arms length.

If the feds withheld federal funds, the state would challenge in the courts, and dollars that provide services to the poorest student would be at risk.

Can states use alternative assessment tools, such as portfolios or performance-based assessments in lieu of the traditional tests?

The law, ESSA, does have a provision that invites states to apply for permission to establish alternative assessment pilots in addition to the standard assessments, no dollars were provided. Two states have been approved, New Hampshire is utilizing performance-based assessments and Louisiana using content-based instead of common core-based tests, a few other states will be applying for minor changes. Forty high schools, mostly in New York City, have had waivers from state ed for decades, students only take the English Regents, the other subjects, a “portfolio/roundtable” system replaces the regents exams, the schools are referred to as the Consortium schools.

A few Regents members have asked about state-supported alternative assessment pilots, the commissioner has not been enthusiastic, quoting the lack of funding.

 How are the test results used? For state ed? For schools?

The ESSA law requires states to identify low performing schools, in New York State called Targeted School Improvement (TSI) and Comprehensive School Improvement (CSI), the lowest achieving schools on the grades 3-8 ELA and Math tests and high schools with graduation rates below 67%. The schools have three years to show improvement or face sanctions that could result in the closing of the schools. Unfortunately aside from identifying the schools the state does not have the capacity to assist the schools. The state uses a diagnostic tool to identify underlying issues, a checklist; the responsibility to improve the schools is left to the school district. Schools districts that have failed to appropriately support the schools in the first place.

Schools can use the results; an error matrix identifies most common incorrect answers, the school can disaggregate the “errors” by category, provide to teachers who can target these particular standards in lessons. BTW, teachers have always used “errors” to guide future instruction.

At this point I do not see any pathways to changes: the opt out parents will continue to opt out and advocate for eliminating the tests, or, at least making testing at the discretion of the district: highly unlikely. The commissioner will continue to satisfy the feds and opt out parents, not likely. Legislators will try and “satisfy parents,” whatever that means.

The governor has avoided the issue.

Bottom line:  I doubt we will see any changes, unless the Regents decide to abandon computer-based testing.

Census 2020: Political Clout and Dollars at Stake: A Lot of Dollars: How is New York City and State Responding?

Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution requires an “enumeration,” a census every ten years,

Representatives … shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons (meaning slaves). The actual Enumeration shall be made …  every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct

 On April 1, Census Day (minus one year) the Bureau of Census rolled out the plans for the 2020 census. An upbeat presentation by the Bureau of Census, the major change is that the bureau expects a significant percentage of census takers will respond online. The Bureau acknowledges the problem of an undercount, indigenous peoples, the poor, immigrants, hard-to-reach areas all present issues. Watch the presentation here .

The press conference was a lot less upbeat.

The administration budgeted one billion dollars less than requested, and, the major point of contention, a question dealing with citizenship status which could discourage participating in the census.

The citizenship question was challenged in the federal courts and, in a scathing decision the courts sustained the appellants and ruled the question inappropriate,

Plaintiffs proved at trial that, if the citizenship question is added to the 2020 census questionnaire, they will suffer serious harm in the form of lost political representation, lost federal funding, and degradation of information that is an important tool of state sovereignty.  And at least two of those injuries, the loss of political representation and the degradation of information would be irreparable, without any adequate remedy at law.

 Measured against these standards, Secretary Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census —even if it did not violate the Constitution itself —was unlawful for a multitude of independent reasons and must be set aside. To conclude otherwise and let Secretary Ross’s decision stand would undermine the proposition —central to the rule of law —that ours is a government of law and not of men” (John Adams, Novanglus Papers, No. 7 (1775).  And it would do so with respect to what Congress itself has described as “one of the most critical constitutional functions our Federal Government perform” (Read entire decision here.

The question may be decided by the Supreme Court later in the spring.

The Census will determine representation in the House of Representatives, New York State could lose two seats if the undercount is the same as in 2010, and, 55 federal programs are determined by population, New York State could lose a hundred  million in federal dollars. New York State receives 1.6 billion in federal education dollars.

Maya Wiley, an MSNBC contributor and a Professor at the New York School University made a troubling presentation.

,The 2020 Census will be the first on-line Census. It is grossly underfunded and the federal administration in Washington has raised significant concerns for immigrants, legal residents and other vulnerable people. The New School’s Digital Equity Laboratory has been working on a project to support greater collaborative work between libraries, community leaders and city governments in the New York region to support a fair and safe Census.

 The CUNY Mapping Service  lays out the data and the challenges: “low response scores,” population groups with increased risks of being undercounted,” “households with no computer or inadequate internet access,” by neighborhood.

The Bureau of Census, the advocates and the newly appointed New York City Census Director, Julie Menin are planning to work with libraries, and community organization, an excellent plan; however, why aren’t schools at the center of the plan?

I e-communicated with Julie Menin, and did receive a thumbs up.

There are 1800 schools, 1.1 million kids and over 100,000 highly motivated teachers and paraprofessionals. Schools have staff members to match the language of their students, and close relationships with families.

Why isn’t the Department of Education at the center of a census outreach plan?

The teacher union is enthusiastic and understands the vital importance; an undercount means loss of jobs and vital services to children and families.

In addition every high school senior must take a course entitled, “Participation in Government,”

This course aims to provide students with opportunities to become engaged in the political process by acquiring the knowledge and practicing the skills necessary for active citizenship. Content specifications are not included, so that the course can adapt to present local, national, and global circumstances, allowing teachers to select flexibly from current events to illuminate key ideas and conceptual understandings. Participation in government and in our communities is fundamental to the success of American democracy.

 The course can engage students in census field work across the city, a powerful tool to maximize participation in the census, a powerful activity to involve students in civics, in real, live activities.

While the census is a year away now is the time to create an inclusive plan.

The Specialized High Schools and the admittance test dominate the news cycle while the census is barely acknowledged.

I hope that State Commissioner Elia instructs her staff to post Census lessons on EngageNY as well as instruct school district leaders to provide census outreach in each and every school in the state.

I expect that Chancellor Carranza will appoint a census coordinator, a vital position considering what’s at stake.

What Happened? Why Are the New York City Specialized High Schools (and Schools in General) So Segregated? Some History and Suggestions

It was February, 1964, my first high school teaching job at Wingate High School; I was hired as a substitute to fill a full term assignment and showed up nervous, only to see police barricades and a crowd waving signs, it was the first day of the Galamison integration boycott.  The sixties: anti-war demonstrations, a new militant teacher union, civil rights marches into the South, and, a school integration movement in New York City. Reverend Milton Galamison, the pastor at the Siloam Baptist Church in Bedford-Stuyvesant and allies led an attempt to integrate NYC schools. Clarence Taylor, “Knocking at Our Door: Milton Galamison and the Struggle to Integrate New York City Schools” (1997, 2001) recounts in detail the political struggles and infighting of the 60’s  that has reemerged more than a half century later and David Rogers, “110 Livingston Street: A Study of Politics and Integration in NYC Schools,” (1968) unearthed the conflicts within and outside of the Board of Education.

I have described the former Board of Education as a lump of silly putty, easy to impact and difficult to change permanently; characteristic of large bureaucracies.

A close friend and mentor, Chet Fulmer, in a reverse busing plan sent his children to an all-black school near the Brooklyn Navy Yard while across the city in Queens a community organization, Parents and Taxpayers (PAT) fought against busing black children into white schools.

I really liked Wingate, a great staff, it was an exciting place, and on the last day of school I received my appointment, not to Wingate, to James Madison High School; the school at which Chet was the union leader.

The Board’s ambitious elementary school busing plan faded away under unrelenting pressures; the Board did implement a high school plan, an all-black neighborhood was zoned into Madison; while the kids were welcomed by the staff the neighborhood surrounding Madison was not happy. Madison was probably chosen because Chet was the union leader and a staunch advocate and defender of integrated schools.

Almost a decade later, in December, 1973 a race-based riot erupted in and around Madison, Fran Schumer wrote a perceptive article (“Prisoners of Class”) a few weeks later in The Harvard Crimson and I blogged about the complexities of school integration a few months ago.

A half century later school integration is once again at the top of the political agenda.

Only seven Afro-American students received offers at Stuyvesant out of the 895 student offers, meaning, passed the SHSAT (Specialized High School Admittance Test).

The school integration efforts of the 60’s were not a failure. The City Colleges moved to open admissions, yes, highly controversial, a few school districts implemented integration plans.

Susan Edelman, in the NY Post, unearths surprising numbers, the currently segregated specialized high schools were not as segregated before mayoral control.

In 1984 [Brooklyn Tech] had 4,531 students — including 2,239 black and 814 white. Black and Hispanic kids made up 63.5 percent of the student body.

From the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, black and Hispanic kids made up close to half or more of the Brooklyn Tech student body. Stuyvesant and Bronx Science, the other original specialized schools, had many more black and brown kids than today, though not a majority.

Twenty-five years later New York schools are described as “extreme segregation.”

How did New York City move from continuing incremental steps towards integrated schools to the damning report of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, “New York State’s Extreme School Segregation: Inequality, Inaction and a Damaged Future,”

New York has the most segregated schools in the country: in 2009, black and Latino students in the state had the highest concentration in intensely-segregated public schools (less than 10% white enrollment), the lowest exposure to white students, and the most uneven distribution with white students across schools. Heavily impacting these state rankings is New York City, home to the largest and one of the most segregated public school systems in the nation.

 The Civil Rights Project breaks out the numbers in detail – see charts/graphs here.

What happened?

 Changing Demographics:

The white school population continued to decrease, the school white population is currently 14.7%. The Black population has decreased slightly, the Hispanic population has increased and the Asian population has increased exponentially.  Chinese are the largest immigrant group entering New York City each year.

On the bright side, a just-released report  from the UCLA Civil Rights Project finds that public schools in gentrifying neighborhoods are becoming less segregated.

Multiple School Options:

There are a number of high achieving predominantly Black schools and a few well-integrated screened schools. Bedford Academy, and Medgar Evers,  are high achieving Black schools, Columbia Secondary High School is a high achieving integrated school. Go to “School Performance Dashboards” and check on any school.

 The Elimination of IGC and SP Classes

Under the old Board of Education there were citywide standards for Intellectually Gifted Classes (IGC) in grades 4-6 and Special Progress (SP) classes in grades 7-9 based on English and Math scores on city-wide tests; yes, there were state tests and city tests and district tests, without the complaints we hear today. A few districts had “gifted” elementary schools (District 7 – South Bronx and District 16 – Bedford Stuyvesant), The Bloomberg administration supported the  creation of centrally controlled Gifted and Talent classes, in predominantly white and/middle class districts and ended the major route to the specialized high schools for students of color.

Explosion of Test Preparation

The SHSAT is not aligned with the state ELA and Math tests; test preparation geared to the SHSAT is vital for students, and, expensive. Before mayoral control districts provided Saturday and after school tutoring programs, washed away under mayoral control.

Politics and Mayoral Control

The downside of mayoral control is using education policies for political advantage. The creation of numerous screened schools and programs in predominantly white/middle class schools appears to be a policy to attract white/middle class voters, conversely, not creating gifted and talented programs in schools in areas that oppose Bloomberg is an example of the downside of putting mayors in charge of education policy. deBlasio, who paints himself as the “progressive mayor” raced up to Albany in the closing days of the legislative session with a bill to replace the SHSAT with a percentage of highest achievers in each middle school; a policy supported by the progressives, the de Blasio constituency.

Either through the passage of a change in the law or the de Blasio tweaks to the Discovery Program it appears that the percentages of student of color in the elite high schools will begin to change; however, changing numbers does not change school and community cultures.

By 2020, each of the specialized schools that determine admission based solely on a single exam will be required to reserve 20 percent of their seats for students in the Discovery program. (Stuyvesant High School, which is participating in the program for the first time this year, admitted 23 students through Discovery. Under the mayor’s plan, the school will have to increase that number sevenfold.)

The NYC Human Right Commission Report that followed the racial conflict at Madison exposed the underlying problem; simply adding students of color without supports is a formula for failure. Read the NY Times article after the release of the NYC Human Rights Report.

The race for Gracie Mansion is in full swing, 2021 may be down the road, the candidates are defining themselves, aiming at possible constituencies. Corey Johnson, the leader of the City Council released his plan , a disastrous plan for the city. Johnson suggests more elite screened high schools and more gifted and talent schools/programs, effectively widening the “tale of two cities.” Johnson would create two school systems, one made of up higher achieving students segregated into high achieving schools leaving the remainder of the schools with struggling lower achieving students.

Jumaane Williams, the newly elected public advocate and a graduate of Brooklyn Tech, one of the legacy SHSAT schools, recommends, in an NY Daily News op ed a more measured approach, more gifted and talent programs and more opportunities for test prep in local schools, and, a great deal of community engagement.

Cristina Veiga at Chalkbeat tweeted a number of core questions that Johnson and Williams failed to address.

I’m concerned that many of the “solutions” will exacerbate a “tale of two cities” in schools; segregating kids by academic abilities. Once upon a time the system created comprehensive high schools, schools with a wide range of kids by ability and interests. Schools with advanced classes and shops, classrooms made up of kids with a range of academic abilities; yes, teaching was more challenging, what we call heterogeneous grouping in high schools requires different skill sets.

Career and Technical Education (CTE), formerly known as vocational education does not always require separate schools; these programs can be embedded in the larger high schools or embedded in schools on multiple school campuses.

We cannot create a “solution” to the elite high school enrollment problem that negatively impacts other schools.

The Discovery Program and test prep programs over time, will increase the enrollment at the specialized high schools. The specialized high school test can be more closely aligned with the state tests and curriculum.

Too often the “cure” only exacerbates the problem. There are no easy fixes, Corey Johnson’s response is an example; magic wands only work in fairy tales. Community engagement, by community I mean parents and teachers and advocacy organizations, difficult meetings, internal disagreements, over time leading to mutually acceptable accommodations; perhaps “creating a process where tolerable compromises can be found.”

Rule # 1 of personal and organization change: participation reduces resistance, coupled with Rule # 2, change is perceived as punishment.

This education stuff is hard, complicated and never-ending, as is life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7igP3tY75U

Feds Cite New York State for Decades of Depriving Special Education Students of Services: Will/Can the State Comply?

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1975) for the first time recognized that disabled children required a special educational setting.  The law required that each state establish mechanisms for the identification and placement of children with disabilities in “appropriate” educational settings, the creation of an Individual Education Plan (IEP), with educational goals, and by appropriate the law means appropriate to their disability. The law also requires that parents are involved in every step of the process and have the right to appeal decisions of the school district.

In New York State parents or teachers can refer children for testing, to the Committee on Special Education (CSE), and, within strict time frames evaluate and place the student in the setting appropriate to their disability. The settings range from integrated settings, classes made up of general education and children with IEP’s, with two teachers, a content area teacher and a certified special education teacher to self-contained classrooms with lower class size and a paraprofessional to separate schools with a wide range of services. The IEP is reviewed annually and the CSE, with the involvement of the parent, can alter the placement of the student.

In New York City before mayoral control every district had a District Administrator Special Education, the “DASE,” who acted essentially as the deputy to the superintendent for special education. As the district union rep I worked closely with the DASE. Any questions or complaints from staff were resolved expeditiously. The Department of Education provided each district with dollars for professional development for special education staff, called QUIPP, with a central director of the program. We constructed an “interest inventory,” (better name than “needs assessment”) asking staff to identify topics for workshops as well as topics they would like to teach and provided a modest stipend.

Scores of special education staff signed up; additionally, we combined with another district and held a weekend conference with speakers and workshops.  One of our speakers was Robert Sternberg, a leading scholar on Intelligence and Creativity, who changed the way many teachers approached teaching children diagnosed with disabilities.

Unfortunately under the Bloomberg/Klein regency there were major changes in management structures and special education slid down the ladder. Evaluation and placement ignored rigid time frames, schools created “waiting lists” for placements, principals changed IEPs without any teacher or parent involvement and complaints were ignored. The State Education Department was aloof.

The feds finally began to hassle the state and Commissioner King appeared to be responding, the state created a “specific plan’ and agreed to resolve compliance issues within three years.

By letter dated March 28, 2014 the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) informed the New York State Education Department (NYSED) that it is not in compliance with … the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act …  These provisions relate to the requirement that NYSED’s Office of State Review, which is the second-tier in New York’s two-tier special education due process system, render decisions within 30 days.  The March 28, 2014 letter suggested that NYSED may be able to enter into a compliance agreement with OSEP which, subject to public hearing, would allow continued IDEA Part B funding to New York based on a specific plan to come into compliance with these regulatory requirements as soon as feasible, but no later than three years. 

Five years later and the situation has gotten worse, much worse.

At the March Board of Regents Meeting the Department, complying with orders from the feds issued a scathing report, as well as releasing an equally chilling report  on the death of a special education student in Rochester due to flagrant violations of special education regulations

State Education Department Commissioner MaryEllen Elia and New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced the findings of a civil investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Trevyan Rowe, a 14-year-old student in the Rochester City School District (RCSD) who went missing on March 8, 2018. The investigation found that systemic failures in school policy and procedures existed at James P.B. Duffy School No. 12, the school Trevyan attended at the time of his death.

Five years after the feds cited the state the situation has deteriorated, the board members were aghast, they asked, “Why weren’t we aware of the situation?”

Of the seventeen areas that the feds monitor the state was out of compliance in fifteen of the areas!!  The chart in the report had fifteen bold red “X”s and a paltry two green checks. The SED PowerPoint, highlighted major compliance issues,

• Longstanding Non-Compliance
• Timely Initial Individual Evaluations
• Timeliness of Due Process Hearing
• Graduation Rates
• Dropout Rate
• Participation in State Assessments

Forty-four school districts in the state were out of compliance including all of the Big Five (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers and New York City).

In New York City parents, advocates and the UFT, the teacher union, has been complaining for years and years. Thousands of complaints have been shipped to the state without any responses. A month ago the UFT testified before the City Council and made its annual plea for upgrading and complying with special education regulations–

The NYC Chancellor was “shocked, shocked”that the city was out of compliance.

Sadly, the deprivation of services to thousands upon thousands of disabled students only warranted a few lines in the press and the Specialized High Schools Admittance Test untold thousands of lines and almost daily coverage.

Chancellor Carranza has said the right things; however. when a similar situation was unearthed in Houston, his former employment, he was equally aghast, and little changed in his year and a half at the helm,

But multiple observers also said that while Carranza said many of the right things, it’s less clear to what extent his efforts changed the reality in schools. A recent audit shows that the district still kept students from being evaluated for special education services after Carranza initiated reforms.

 Carranza took “good first steps,” [an advocate] added. “Do I think special education has largely changed during his first year and a half in the district? No.”

 At the March 19^th UFT Delegate Assembly, over 1,000 elected teacher delegates, union president Mulgrew, in frustration, described the Department of Education as a number of castles, I would add, with moats, defending their fiefdoms.

Whether the chancellor can impose his suzerainty will determine his success, or lack thereof.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME