The Bloomberg Small Schools Are Doing A Disservice To Self Contained Special Education Students.

 




There have been pros and cons when breaking up large comprehensive high school and make three to six small schools on the campus.  The pros would be closer relationship between students and staff, assuming staff stays at the school which is problematic.  A higher graduation rate (but not college readiness) and a more focused student centered environment.  The cons are limited course curricula, high teacher turnover and usually an inexperienced teaching staff in low income communities, and .lack of resources for the neediest of students.  However, the biggest negative are those Special Education students who need a self-contained environment.  Be it 12-1-1 or 8-1-1.  Instead most of the Bloomberg small high schools have no self-contained classrooms and these Special Education students are dumped into a ICT classes with class sizes as high as 34 students.

The DOE will claim that they are mandated to put Special Education students in the "least restrictive environment" but many students need a self contained classroom, where he or she gets more intensive academic and behavioral support.  This is just another example of the DOE's "education on the cheap" policy at the expense of the Special Education student.

Ask any teacher at the high school level how many potential self-contained Special Education students will pass the end of year Regents.  How about close to zero!  Yet, the Bloomberg small schools dumped these high needs students in ICT classes of up to 34 students.

The villain is the DOE and their "no excuses" philosophy when it comes to the teacher evaluation system and combined with their "education on the cheap" policy and you have a recipe for failure and that's what happens in school after schools in the small school universe in New York City.

The bottom line is that the DOE treats self-contained Special Education students a disservice when they dumped them in ICT classes.  For these "high needs" students the DOE's child last policy hurts their academic achievement.

How Small Themed School Principals Want To Game The System By Rejecting High Needs Students.

I read the Beth Fertig schoolbook article on how small themed schools try to get the most interesting applicants to their school and have some real issues about how naive Beth Fertig is, considering how experienced she is on New York City education issues.

First, she bought the kool-ade that small themed schools should be allowed to "screen" the applicant list to only select the "interested student".  Despite the fact that all schools must take a lower third student population.  Gone are the days when the Bloomberg administration allowed the small schools to exclude the lower third academically challenged student to ensure that the school succeeds while dumping the rest into the schools he wanted to close and did.

Second, these principals of the themed small schools would be happy to exclude "high needs" students, like Special Education, English Language Learners, and behaviorally challenged students if given the chance. Yet, Beth Fertig seemed not to understand that's what these principals were really requesting.

Finally, Beth Fertig should have asked the obvious question to these principals from the small themed schools,  What then happens to the students who cannot meet the school's threshold criteria?  The answer is also quite obvious, you dump them in the academically struggling schools and make it their problem.

Of course, the reason the small themed schools want only "interested students" is because these are the students that most likely have good academic skills, parents who went to school fairs or made a school visit, and best of all will have the best chance to graduate high school. Remember, the DOE still uses the graduation rate as the main focus of a school's success or failure and the first thing parents look at is the school's graduation rate. Given the chance, these themed small schools would "game the system" and could not care what happens to those "high needs" students, as long as they can reject them for their school.

To read a more detailed analysis of Beth Fertig's article please read the Ed the Apple blog.

Why The NYU Study On The Closed Schools, When Replaced By Small Schools, Is Fatally Flawed.

This week, NYU released a study showing that students fared better with the closing of the many large comprehensive high schools and replaced by the Bloomberg small schools. The basis for the study's conclusion was the increased graduation rate from the small schools when compared to the closed schools.  However, the study is fatally flawed since the graduation rate is a bogus parameter and easily manipulated by the school Principal to allow students to graduate academically unprepared for college and career.  Let's look at how schools manipulate the graduation rate.

First, a little history.  During the 2002-08 time period the study looked at 29 closed high schools and the results for future students who instead went to the Bloomberg small schools which showed a 15% increase in the graduation rate.  However, the study admits that students who fled these closing schools did worse then the ones who stayed and graduated,  Moreover, these students who fled were academically behind their peers in the new schools they transferred to.

Credit Recovery:
During the time period the study covered there was an explosion of credit recovery courses that artificially increased a struggling student's credit accumulation.  Even the State finally saw the abuse of the credit recovery system and required the City to put an end to it in 2012.  The primary beneficiaries were the Bloomberg small schools who needed to have a high graduation rate to show how successful they were.  Therefore, they gave struggling students loads of "credit recovery" courses, many of them were bogus.  You can read some of the stories, Here, Here, and Here.

Principal Pressure:
The Bloomberg small schools were notorious in hiring "newbie teachers"  and since these teachers lacked tenure, they were pressured to pass along the school's struggling students.  Teachers who failed too many of their students were discontinued due to scholarship issues and were banned from working at the DOE.  This message resonated loud and clear with the inexperienced staff and resulted in high graduation rates despite these students academically unable to succeed in college or careers.

Student Selection: 
To ensure the Bloomberg small schools would succeed they opened with some very significant advantages like excluding many ELL;s and Special Education students the first few years of their operation.  Further, they limited "high needs" students (namely level 1's) and were given 110% of the resources allocated to the school of similar size and student demographics.   These significant advantages were, in contrast to the higher levels of "high needs" , ELL's, and Special Education students that were in the soon to be closed large comprehensive large schools.  Moreover, these soon to be closed schools were starved for resources and averaged 80% of what similar large comprehensive schools received.  The Bloomberg small school I am in for this year is a prime example as they were once a high achieving school in the mid 2000's, when it first opened.  and now they struggle to get even mediocre, students to go to the school as their funding advantage disappeared and they could no longer exclude students. The resulting influx of "high needs" students has destabilized the school environment.

When you put the three aspects together, the bogus "credit recovery" programs, Principal pressure to  graduate academically unprepared students, and the deliberate advantages that the Bloomberg administration bestowed on his newly created schools, you basically are getting a higher graduation rate at these small schools, when compared to the closed large comprehensive schools.  However, what's more telling is the low college and career readiness scores that show that many of the Bloomberg small school are graduating students who are unprepared for college or careers in the adult world. That's why the NYU report is fatally flawed.

The Small Schools That Replaced The Large Comprehensive Schools Are A Failure.

During the Bloomberg years, the city came up with the bright idea, advocated by Bill Gates and then abandoned as not the answer, that closing the large comprehensive schools in poor communities and replacing them with smaller schools will improve student academic achievement.  These small schools will show an improved graduation rate and "college and career readiness" rates.  Well the graduation rates did improve, thanks to "credit recovery", Principal pressure, student exclusionary practices, and questionable grading policies.  However, the "college and career readiness" rates cannot be manipulated and these rates clearly show how much a failure these small schools have been when improving academic achievement.

Lets look at the 2013-14 school year "college and career readiness" scores of the small schools that replaced the large comprehensive schools in Queens.  The citywide average "college and career readiness" rates is 32% while the average in Queens is 36%.

Andrew Jackson High School Campus:

Business Computer Application and Enterpriseship........4%
Law, Government And Community Service..................9%
Humanities and Arts Magnet School..........................5%
Math, Science Research Technology Magnet..............19%

Franklin K. Lane Campus:

Brooklyn Lab School...............................................11%
Cypress Hills Collegiate Prep....................................11%
Multicultural..........................................................2%

Far Rockaway Complex:

Fredrick Douglas Academy VI....................................7%
Information, Research And Technology........................8%
Academy of Medical Technology................................21%

Springfield Gardens Campus:

Queens Preparatory Academy..................................18%
George Washington Carver......................................30%
Excelsior  Preparatory High School............................21%
Preparatory Academy For Writers.............................31%

Since the Beach Channel and Jamaica high schools have closed this year, the small schools that inhabit the campuses are new and were given extra funding and allowed to exclude "high needs students" from the schools to ensure that they succeed.  Therefore, they were not included in this post until there is a real track record for them.

The relatively high "college and career readiness" scores of the small schools at the Springfield Gardens complex will rapidly drop as the data reflect the last year of the new small school exclusion policy that kept low achieving students from being accepted to the schools which is no longer the case.

For comparison what were the "college and career readiness" rates of the large comprehensive high schools that the Bloomberg administration tried to close but failed to get court approval?

August Martin........................................................6%
Flushing...............................................................20%
Grover Cleveland...................................................17%
John Adams..........................................................12%
Long Island City....................................................29%
Newtown.............................................................14%
Richmond Hill........................................................11%
William Cullen Bryant .............................................33%
...
The average "college and career readiness" scores of the eight large comprehensive Queens high schools, slated for closure but spared by the courts is approximately 18% while the small schools created at the four closed large comprehensive high schools averaged only 14%.

If one uses the "college and career readiness" scores, its obvious that the small schools carved out of the closed large comprehensive high schools have not shown any real academic improvements.  In fact, that might be even worse once the small schools have a longer track record and cannot exclude "high needs students" as the Campus Magnet schools (Andrew Jackson Campus) have shown..

Why The MDRC Small School Study Is Crap.

Once again the so-called non-profit MDRC has used questionable statistics and biased assumptions to falsely show that the Bloomberg small schools, between 2002-07, had better graduation rates and enrolled in college at a higher percentage than the large high schools. Yes, if one looks at the simple conclusion it does look like the small schools have a 4 year graduation rate that's 15% higher than the large schools and 49% enroll in college compared to the 40% in the larger schools.  However, if one looks deeper into the statistics you find some very disturbing problems with the study.

First, the MDRC study only sampled the oversubscribed small schools and not all the small schools.   In particular, the MDRC study left out the small schools that had open seats and located in deep poverty communities.  I wonder how that would have changed the small school statistics?

Second, its common knowledge that during the Chancellor Joel Klein tenure, which takes in the 2002-07 study period, small schools were allowed to exclude "high needs" students, like Special Education, English Language Learners, and students with behavioral, attendance, and academic difficulties.

Third, while the average large school was underfunded by 20%, the Bloomberg small schools were given their full allocation and then some more additional funding to ensure they succeed.

Finally, the DOE deliberately dumped large numbers of "high needs" and over the counter students into the large schools, lowering their 4 year graduation rates and college enrollment percentage.

Let's see, if I opened a school and excluded "high needs" students, used academics, attendance, and  behavioral parameters to select or reject students,  and didn't take my fair share of over the counter students  my school would be successful too.  What's interesting is that the small schools didn't have better results, considering their exclusion of low achieving middle school students.  The reason probably lies with the poor administration (leadership academy principals)  and their hiring of inexperienced teachers that hurt student academic achievement.

If you believe the MDRC study is accurate than I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

The City Pulls All Stops To Get "Select" Newbie Teachers Hired While Trying To Kick ATRs To The Curb.

The DOE has shown once again how they will go to great lengths to get "newbie teachers" hired while making it difficult for schools to hire better qualified ATRs.  In today's Gotham Schools there is an article that showed how the DOE welcomed these "newbie teachers" with cookies, drinks, presents, and put them on the top of the list for vacancies. The DOE even brought in a musician to serenade these "select newbie teachers".   Many of these teachers may have graduated high in their class but can they teach?  Obviously, many, maybe a majority of these "select teachers" will be long gone from the New York City schools in five years and the City will be forced to find and train replacements at the expense of the students.

On the other hand, there are over a thousand ATRs floating around the NYC Public Schools and few are offered positions , except as long term replacements in hard to staff areas like science and special education.  The ATRs who do get jobs are usually the untenured or ATRs that have less than five years experience and are relatively inexpensive.  As for the highly experienced and relatively more expensive ATRs?  They have a less of a chance of getting a vacancy then a snowstorm in April, thanks to the "fair student funding fiasco".  This is especially true in the Bloomberg small schools where most of the teachers are recent hires and the average teacher salary is $55,000.  Therefore, for a Principal to hire a teacher making $85,000,  He or she would need to come up with the $30,000 difference. Is it any wonder that Principals would be reluctant to hire a teacher who is going to put a dent into his or her budget?  While some of the best schools have an average salary of $80,000 or more, many schools run by "Leadership Academy principals" experience massive teacher turnover and cannot afford or want an ATR "quality teacher", even if it's what's best for the students. Just last year, the ATR job fair was a joke with few schools represented and even fewer administrators with the authority to offer positions.  In one case, a school sent a Secretary to take names of ATRs to screen them for a possible interview.  What a joke and a disgrace!

It's too bad that the DOE is so shortsighted that recruitment is more important than retention to them. When I keep reading that the DOE puts "children first", I must laugh because the real truth is that the students of the school is put last when it comes to hiring qualified teachers.

Bill Gates Is Wrong, The New York City Small Schools Do Not Work.

Bill Gates has realized that small schools do not work and wants to spent his billions on other educational initiatives like quality teaching, another murky and unworkable initiative  However, Bill Gates believes that the Bloomberg small schools did find success in New York City.  I guess if you take the DOE disinformation spin at face value you might think the same thing.

Thank goodness for teacher and blogger Marc Epstein who wrote a fantastic article on the mirage of the Bloomberg small schools. His article, titled "Small Schools Miracle Or Mirage?" debunks the theory that the Bloomberg small schools work.  The Gates study points out the increased graduation rates of the Bloomberg small schools and the lower violence statistics given to them by the City.  Unfortunately the Gates study failed to show the low "college and career readiness" rates, the massive "credit recovery courses", the lack of experienced teachers, and the habit of these schools in not reporting school safety incidents since it would affect the school's grade. Furthermore, the Bloomberg small schools excluded English Language Learners and Special Education students and recruited outside the neighborhood to "stack the deck" in showing the illusion of success in these schools. 

Mr. Epstein brought up the example of the breaking up of Andrew Jackson High School into four small schools called  "Campus Magnet" and it resulted in no improvement in student academic achievement or reduce violence.  In fact, two of the schools are closing and one other has the most "Unsatisfactory" teacher ratings for any other high school staff.in the City!  The result is a large annual urnover of teachers in the school called "Math Science Research Tech Magnet" and an Administration from hell.

Worse, the "career and college readiness" rates for the Bloomberg small schools was a terrible 10.7% compared to an overall high school rate of 20,7% as of 2011.  Moreover, the limited curriculum and lack of extra-curricular activities bring with it a rigid education model that overwhelms the small school intimacy that is the selling point for many of these schools. For other problems and limitations of the Bloomberg small schools you can read my post Here.   . 

It is time to put tho rest that the myth that the Bloomberg small schools are a success.  In fact, they are a failure as they lack the amenities, quality teaching, and curriculum flexibility that the large comprehensive schools they replaced offered.