The NYC Small Schools Have Many Disadvanatages.

\




Being an ATR, I have first hand experience of the many disadvantages of the small school experience.  Unfortunately, for the students of these small schools they soon realize that the propaganda that the small high schools allow for a more family-like atmosphere and better academics (not true) pales in comparison of the many disadvantages associated wit the small high school experience.  Let's look at the many disadvantages of the small school experience.

Limited Curriculum:
Now that the small schools are under the same monetary limitations as all other schools which is about 90% of their fair funding, they cannot offer enough Advanced Placement or higher level courses to better prepare the student for college and students who do not like the teacher is stuck with him or her, .  Moreover, they lack flexibility and have limited choices beyond the State required courses.  Finally, in these small schools only one teacher may be certified to teach the subject.

Inexperienced Teachers:
Due to budgetary restrictions and DOE inspired hiring practices, many of the small schools have hired the "cheapest and not the best teachers" for the schools.  For many principals it's how much they can stretch their tight budget and veteran teachers are just too expensive.  Its common knowledge that there is a steep learning curve for "newbie" teachers and it takes 5 to 8 years for these teachers to master the Art of teaching.  That includes classroom management, curriculum knowledge, and social skills to work with a student population. In addition, the small schools are subject to high teacher turnover and an unstable school environment.

Lack of Extracurricular Activities:
Many of the small schools lack space for sports programs, may don't even have a gym!  Further, the limited funding means that schools must choose to offer either Art or Music but can't afford both,  Moreover,  physical education is limited to two or three days a week rather than everyday.Finally, programs like Dance, Literature, and clubs are almost non-existent in the small high schools.

Top Heavy In Administrators: 
Many of the small schools are top heavy in administrators with each small school having a Principal and between two and three assistant principals.  In the campus of a closed large comprehensive high school, the total amount of administrators to oversee 3,000 students was eight administrators, one Principal and seven assistant principals.  Now the four small schools that replaced it has fourteen administrators, four principals and ten assistant principals.  This does not include  administrative managers (coaches and financial managers etc.) assigned to the school who must pay for their services. The small schools are usually headed by  Leadership Academy Principal who have a reputation of not running a collaborative administration. 

Ask any high school student who go to these small high schools and they will tell you that they made a mistake because of the restrictions and limitations of the small school experience.

Why NYC's Small School Miracle Is A Mirage.

In Monday's New York Times there is an article on the lack of Music in many of the NYC small high schools that were created from the 69 large comprehensive high schools that Mayor Bloomberg closed.  While the article was accurate on the lack of a Music program, it only scratched the surface of the  problems with the small school miracle that Mayor Bloomberg and his education reformer administrators at the DOE claimed.  Let's examine the issues:

Graduation Rate:
The first thing the education reformers will bring up is the small school graduation rate increased substantially.  However, when you consider that the average small schools that came from the large comprehensive large schools had  only accepted a maximum enrollment of half the students of the closed large school, which students do you think were left out of the small schools?  The answer was the self contained Special Education students, the English Language Learners, and the students who had academic, behavioral, or attendance issues.  Moreover, the DOE ensured a higher graduation rate in the small schools by allowing these schools to exclude "high needs" students and while most large comprehensive high schools suffered from budget cuts that resulted in some schools receiving as little as 78% (Flushing high school for one) of their fair funding, the new small schools were fully funded at 100% and in some cases received extra funding of up to 50% more that their fair funding.  Finally, the DOE allowed these newly created small schools to keep their number of students down by excluding the "high needs" students and still be fully funded.  It's little wonder the first few graduating classes had a higher graduation rate. The cohorts were different from the cohort of the closed down large comprehensive high school it replaced.

Funding:
As mention previously, the small schools that replaced the closed down large comprehensive schools were fully funded while the large comprehensive high schools were funded at between 78% to 82% of their fair funding.

Academic Fraud:
To keep up their graduation rate after the small schools were eventually required to take "high needs" students after a couple of years of excluding them.  The small schools were still allowed to exclude self contained students and English Language Learners who traditionally had low test scores and graduation rates.  The student cohorts became increasingly more like the large comprehensive schools they replaced.  Therefore school administrators resorted in "academic fraud" to jack up the graduation rate by giving struggling students "credit recovery" courses. and administrative inspired "scholarship guidelines" that linked a teacher's effectiveness to meeting the goal.  For example most school had a scholarship guideline of 80% passing of a teacher's roster, including no shows.  Failure to meet that goal could result in a teacher being rated "ineffective"  or  "unsatisfactory".  Furthermore, some principals would change grades from the teacher's failing to passing and would intimidate teachers, especially the untnured teacher to accept the changed grade.  Finally,  some schools go a step further by implementing a "blended learning" scheme that allowed all students to use online instruction rather than having a teacher instruct the student, they developed a blended learning program that had one teacher in charge of 50 or more students and the teacher was usually not certified in the subject and failed to provide adequate instructor.

The bottom line is that the first few years of the Bloomberg small schools they had a student cohort that was academically superior to the large comprehensive high school it replaced because the schools had small class sizes were fully funded, and excluded "high needs" students.  However, once the small schools had to accept the "high needs" students, have full class sizes, and were funded like every other school, the small school miracle became a mirage.  Even Bill Gates realized the small schools did not improve academic achievement.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly About The Bloomberg Small Schools.

Back in 2009, Bill Gates, who pushed for small schools, soon realized that small schools didn't work.  The one exception he said was the New York City (Bloomberg) small schools.  Instead, Bill Gates focused on teacher accountability and evaluation based on test scores.   Why was the Bloomberg small schools the exception?   Simple.  The Bloomberg small schools, to ensure they succeeded, were over funded,  while the large comprehensive schools were underfunded by 20% or more of their fair student funding.   Moreover, the Bloomberg small schools were allowed to exclude "high needs" students like English Language Learners, Special Education, and Behaviorally challenged students while dumping then in the large comprehensive schools he wanted and did close.  Finally, if the Bloomberg small schools could not attract enough academically proficient students, they still received funding for the empty seats which kept class sizes small.   The result was that the first few years, these Bloomberg schools had much higher academic proficiency rates and that is why Bill Gates found them a success.  Of course, once the Bloomberg small schools were subject to the same funding and policies as the rest of the schools, the student academic achievement dropped significantly.

Let's look at the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Bloomberg small schools and the false promises of a great education they claimed the students would get..

The Good:
In theory, small schools allow for a more personal relationship between staff and students.  In fact, many of these schools advertise the family-like atmosphere and that most teachers are familiar with the students and can provide emotional and social support as well as academic help.  Usually, graduation rates are higher at small schools since fewer students fall through the gaps as the schools are better able to track students.

The Bad:
Small schools have limited course selection, few electives, and no flexibility in their schedules.  Moreover, despite the small school size, classes are usually at contract limits of 34 and students are forced to take courses that they are not capable of passing.  Further, the Bloomberg small schools have a largely inexperienced staff and subject to high teacher turnover leading to an unstable school environment. Finally,  many of the unscreeneed Bloomberg small schools are now required to select "over-the-counter" students.  Many of them "high needs" and level one students just to reach the numbers when it comes to funding. No more funding for empty seats.

The Ugly:
The Bloomberg small schools have abysmally low "college and career readiness" rates  Usually headed by a "Leadership Academy" Principal, and have a reputation of being top-heavy in administration and hostile to their teaching staff.  Moreover, teacher autonomy in the classroom is virtually non-existent and micromanaging is the rule, where Danielson is used as a weapon.   Finally, the graduates from these schools are subject to no-credit remedial courses and struggle in college.  In other words.  they graduate unprepared for life after high school.  Remember, there are no "credit recovery courses" in college or administrative pressure to pass undeserving students and being absent or late gets one fired in the job market. Welcome to the real world and for far too many of these students its really a slap in their face.

Finally, most students who are  enrolled in the Bloomberg small schools will tell you it was one of their worst mistakes selecting their school.  If you don't believe me then just ask them when you end up in these unscereened Bloomberg small schools.

.

Why The Bloomberg Small Schools Are Really A Failure.

Two very prestigious schools Duke and MIT published a study that showed that 151 Bloomberg small schools were academically better than the large schools that they competed with.  The study showed that the Bloomberg small schools graduated 9% more students than the large schools and that 7% more attended college.  However, there is a back story to these slight academic improvements at the Bloomberg small schools.  The report failed to present the whole picture and assumed the Bloomberg small schools and the large schools had the same "cohort relationship".  The truth is there are significant differences between the Bloomberg small schools and the large schools.

Let's look at what these differences are:

High Needs Students:  the Bloomberg small schools have a history of excluding "high needs students".  In fact, for years it was DOE policy to exempt the "high needs students" such as English Language Learners, Special Education, and behaviorally challenged students to the Bloomberg small schools and dumping them into the large high schools. By excluding these "high needs students" the schools increase the graduation and college attending percentage rates.

Over The Counter Students:  Few, if any "over the counter students" are placed in the Bloomberg small schools.  These "over the counter students" are composed many of recent immigrants, students released from incarceration or suspension centers, and students not selected by any schools either due to parent indifference or attendance issues. These students historically has not fared well in school and are placed in the large high schools.

Administrative Pressure:  The Bloomberg small schools have a majority of inexperienced and young teachers who seek tenure and are unlikely to fail students for fear of not receiving tenure or being discontinued.  By contrast the large schools have tenured and experienced teachers and are more likely to give their students the deserved grade.

Student Screening:  While the report claimed that the schools were selected that did not have a "screening policy", it failed to take into account the unofficial selection process that these "Bloomberg small schools that discourage parents of students who need additional services by claiming they don't have the resources such as a one-to-one paraprofessional and self-contained classes.

Smaller class sizes:  Most, if not all the classes in the Bloomberg small schools have class sizes that are significantly lower than the large schools and lower class sizes are related to a better academic learning environment in the classroom.

Funding:  The Bloomberg small schools are fully funded with some schools getting more than their fair share while the large schools are only getting 80-90% of the funds they need.

The real question is why didn't the Bloomberg small schools didn't do better when compared to the large high schools given their uneven playing field created by the DOE since the DOE provided the Bloomberg small schools with so many advantages?  The answer probably lies with the quality of administration , the lack of an experienced teaching staff, and inflexible student schedules and lack of extracurricular activities  I wrote about this Here.  It's important that people read the Annenberg study to realize how the Bloomberg Administration "stacked the deck" against the large high schools.

Back Into The ATR Pool For Me.

Well, I am back into the ATR pool, complete with weekly assignments, administrative abuse, and student disrespect.  Normally, I would be upset that I am not teaching but this year is very different than any other year.  You see ATRs are not subject to the badly flawed teacher evaluation system!  The Danielson rubric and the use of Common Core without a road-map or resources. That's right, ATRs will be rated under the old "satisfactory/unsatisfactory" system since the DOE cannot account for the "student growth" component that is incorporated in the "junk science" equation developed by the State.  Moreover, I look forward to travel throughout the Queens high schools and evaluate the three components that makes a school good or bad for teachers and you will find it on the resurrected "Traveling ATR blog". .

The three criteria I will use to evaluate and grade the schools I will pass through are as follows:

1. Administrative quality.
2. Student body
3. School tone/discipline policy

The quality of the administration is of primary importance for a school's success or failure.  Last year I had the pleasure of being in a school the entire year where the administration worked collaboratively with staff and had an experienced teaching staff.  In this environment the students thrived academically and there was little fear of vindictive reprisals against effective teachers, even if they are outspoken since it's  "what's best for the students" .  By contrast beware of the Bloomberg small schools with "Leadership Academy Principals".  The staff is usually inexperienced and are required to work extra assignments without compensation.  These schools are  dangerous to the long term survival of a teacher.

The student body is extremely important as the "peer effect" affects the overall student learning. A diverse and engaged student body will lead to a successful school like the one I was in last school year.  On the other hand, if the student body is disengaged and unruly, the "broken window theory" will come into effect and the school will fail. The "peer effect" will make or break a school's potential for success.

Finally, school tone is very important and is usually a deal breaker for a school. The "peer effect" if it's a positive influence on the learning environment, the school will be successful. On the other hand, many schools are trying the restorative approach to student misconduct which allows the student to continue to disrupt the classroom time and again which interferes with student learning.  While restorative approaches have their good points for the misbehaving student, it ignores the needs of the vast majority of students who follow the rules and want to learn but see that there is little consequence for student misbehavior.  The school-wide restorative approach adds to the "broken window theory" and makes a successful school an impossibility for a school's academic success.  A zero tolerance policy against student misconduct will eventually lead to a successful learning environment and go along way to make a successful school.

In summary, if you are an ATR and a school calls you for a long term replacement, check out the school on insideschools and schoolbook to get an understanding of what the school environment is.  Without the necessary information about a school, I suggest you think really long and hard about taking a long-term leave replacement.  I certainly will, especially with the badly flawed teacher evaluation system and the punitive Danialson rubric that will damage the teaching profession for years to come.

What Is The Most Important Characteristic of A Quality Teacher? Connecting With The Students.

Everybody agrees that all classrooms should have a "quality teacher" instructing the students.  However, when you ask the various education reform groups what is a "quality teacher"?  You get vague and unrealistic answers.   If you are Mayor Bloomberg a "quality teacher" to him its a "newbie" that will be a "Teach for America or Teaching Fellow" that cost the least amount and who we leave the profession before getting a pension or retire health benefits.  If it's Bill Gates it's all about being held accountable and under video surveillance.  Especially if it requires the use of "junk science".  If it's ex-Chancellor Joel Klein, it is a teacher that will come in at 7 am and not leave until 7 pm, while not asking for per session.  Finally, to Michelle Rhee a "quality teacher" is one willing to be an at will employee for a few dollars more in their paycheck.In my book a "quality teacher" must posses the following characteristics:

• At least five years of teaching experience.
• Good classroom management skills.
• A deep knowledge of the curriculum.
• A caring and supportive attitude.
• A sense of humor
• A positive connection with the students.

While most education reformers will ignore these requirements publicly, privately they know the above characteristics are necessary to achieve mastery of the classroom.   However, they also know that "quality teachers" require an adequate workload, supportive Administration, and the freedom to try different methods to maximize student learning.  Consequently, this eliminates charter schools, where teacher burnout and turnover is high and in most schools the entire staff is gone in three years.  It also eliminates schools with inexperienced Leadership Academy principals who have limited time in the classroom and are clueless to what good teaching is, and the Bloomberg small schools who are inhabited by untenured staff and burdened with rigid curriculum requirements.  Is it any wonder that the Mayor hates experienced teachers?

Just look at the higher achieving schools, what do most of them have in common?  Right an experienced staff and a supportive Administration that allows the teachers to find the best teaching techniques that allows students to reach their academic potential.  In the school I was in all year, I saw all aspects of good teaching.  A supportive Administration, a stable and experienced teaching staff, and freedom to do the right thing for the students.  When I asked my students what makes a "quality teacher" they almost all said the same thing that the teacher likes and cares about them.  That's right, almost all my students wanted the teacher to connect with them and understand their needs and problems.  One thing they didn't like was for the teacher to be unsupportive or trying to "friend" them.  Both type of teachers turned the students off to learning.  As one girl said to me "I have enough friends. I don't need a teacher to be my friend".  Furthermore, many inexperienced teachers do just that and the students simply walk all over them and these teachers will never master classroom control.  On the other side of the ledger was the teacher who required it to be "my way or the highway attitude".  This type of teacher over controls the classroom , is inflexible, and is resented by the students. Therefore, based upon my many years of experience and discussions with my students while the other factors I listed are important, the most important factor is connecting to the students.  By connecting with the students you gain their respect and give them the confidence that they need to reach their academic goals.

A "quality teacher" is a teacher who can related to the students and guide them to maximize their academic achievement.

The Excellent Teacher And The Clueless DOE.

The DOE has time and again claimed that education reform is necessary because they want only "excellent teachers" to instruct the City's students.  Of course the DOE is clueless to what an excellent teacher is.  The DOE's real motive is their "education on the cheap" policies. For Tweed an excellent teacher is an inexpensive and untenured teacher that will not be in the profession long enough to get a pension or retiree health benefits.  In fact Mayor Bloomberg discounted teacher experience by saying teacher experience is not important to student learning. If the DOE really wanted the best teachers in the schools, the first thing they would do is allow principals to hire the "best teachers" and not the cheapest teachers as they are forced to do now.  Previously principals were able to hire the "best teachers" because all teachers cost the same to the school.  The result was that the principals could hire teachers who they believed would be best for the school's students.  However, under Mayor Bloomberg's ex-Chancellor, Joel Klein, came "fair student funding" that hamstrung principals in who they can hire.

Before "fair student funding" fiasco teachers were units and schools could hire who they pleased as long as they didn't exceed the total units allocated to the school.  Therefore, many principals would try to recruit more experienced teachers to instruct the school's students since they know that the "best teachers" are experienced teachers.  The result was that the better schools would end up with the excellent teachers, while the poorly preforming and ineptly Administrated schools would see a merry-go-round of "newbie teachers" and poor student academic outcomes.  The solution of this teacher inequality would have been to encourage experienced teachers to end their stellar careers at these struggling schools by giving them a monetary motive. Chancellor Rudy Crew, the last Chancellor that actually was an educator, came up with the Chancellor's District that paid teachers 15% more money to teach smaller classes in these struggling schools in return for a slightly longer day and with greater teacher resources.  While it was not a complete success, it did bring experienced teachers to these schools and more importantly, did raise the academic achievement of the school's students. Unfortunately, the Bloomberg/Klein Administration in 2003 put an end to the Chancellor's District and these struggling schools and their students were no longer exposed to these top quality experienced teachers.  The result was a new merry-go-around of "newbie teachers" and student academic outcomes plumeted.  Now these schools are based upon a top-down imposed "drill and kill" strategy that replaced real learning with mind-numbing test preparation. Is it any wonder that these struggling schools are either now closed or in danger of closing?

Once, the "fair student funding" fiasco was implemented by Joel Klein's DOE, combined with the terrible 2005 contract that eliminated the requirement that all excessed teachers in a District must be placed before outside teachers can be hired, it became virtually impossible for a Principal to hire an experienced teacher without taking a significant budget hit.  Even replacing one experienced teacher with another could be tricky budget wise since the original teacher's salary may have been "grandfathered" while the replacement is not. This is especially true during the last few years with increasingly tight school budgets and DOE top-down requirements that schools spent a significant part of their budget for non-school based support systems such as the wasteful and unnecessary Children First Networks.

A prime example of the academic failure is the Bloomberg small schools that only seem to have "newbie" and untenured teachers that leave the schools in three to five years.  Many of these small schools are lead by  "Leadership Academy Principals" who have little classroom experience themselves and are encouraged by Tweed to hire the cheapest teachers to stretch their budget  The result is that parents and students who like the idea of small learning communities, instead found large class sizes, a rigid curriculum, and worse, untested and inexperienced teachers who suffered from a steep learning curve when it came to curriculum knowledge and had poor classroom management skills.  The over reliance of inexperienced teachers in these small schools  hurt student academic achievement and collectively the Bloomberg small schools have  terrible "college and career readiness scores" to show for it, averaging an abysmal 10 7% compared to 20.7% for the large comprehensive high schools.

It is too bad that the non-educators at Tweed cannot recognize what good teaching is but what do you expect when eighteen of the twenty top people at Tweed never taught in the classroom themselves?

You Get What You Pay For When You Practice Education On The Cheap Policies.

It is no secret that the DOE's "fair student funding" fiasco has encouraged principals to hire on the cheap when it comes to teachers.  Many of the Bloomberg small schools are populated with "newbie teachers" and at the high school level that is a real crime when it comes to the education of the students in those schools.  Is it any wonder that the "college and career readiness" rates for those small schools are 10.7%, compared to the 20.7% for all New York City high schools?

An example of this problem was played out in a recently created small school that is one of the small schools replacing a closing school that was targeted by the DOE.  In this school, only in it's third year of existence, the school had recently excessed an experienced Physics teacher because the teacher failed half the students and obtained poor Regents results.  Was he a terrible teacher?  Well, I taught with him for eight years and he always obtained good Regents grades in Physics and rarely failed students at the closing school that the new school now occupies.  The real answer was the students of this new Bloomberg small school.lack the academic ability to handle the math and scientific concepts necessary for high school Physics.  However, it is always easier to blame the teacher than the ill-prepared student body.

To replace the excessed Physics teacher, the school hired two "newbie science teachers", one in Chemistry and the other in Earth Science.  My friend, the ATR was assigned to the school for the first five weeks and the Principal had asked him to shadow the two teachers and help them adjust to the New York City classroom.  He did as he was told but found that both teachers lacked pedagogy, had poor knowledge of the curriculum, and had terrible classroom management skills.  The Chemistry teacher was foreign born and had trouble with the English language and made many grammatical errors when trying to explain Chemistry..  However, what was worse that he made science errors such as telling the students that Helium is la lighter gas than Hydrogen, despite what the Periodic Tables of Chemistry shows.   Moreover, his classroom was noisy and the students were distracted and not engaged.  My friend felt very sorry for those Chemistry students.  He believed they are in for a long and frustrating year.

The Earth Science teacher was a "wet behind the years" newbie who looked like she should be a student rather than a teacher.  Worse was her apparent lack of curriculum knowledge when she incorrectly told her students that latitude were vertical lines and longitude horizontal lines.  The opposite is true.  In addition, she could not run the lab and screwed up a simple density experiment.  Like the Chemistry teacher she had trouble controlling the classroom, seemed very frustrated,  and keeping the students engaged was difficult. My friend doubts she will be teaching next year.

My friend, who is a twenty-two year Science teacher, said to the Principal why did you hire the two science teachers when there are so many good science teachers without classrooms?  The Principal was blunt, she told him that her budget is very tight and she could not afford to pick up a higher salaried teacher, no matter how great the teacher may be.  She felt badly that she could not hire the "best teachers" but the budget made it impossible to do so.  Her parting words to my friend was that she wished she could keep him around to work with the two teachers but the DOE does not allow for it without picking up his salary which she cannot afford.

Is it any wonder why the small schools do so poorly when it comes to "college and career readiness"?  When teachers are selected based upon their salary and not on their ability, the future looks bleak for those students that end up in these small schools. 

Why Are Small Schools Bad For Students? Let Me Count The Ways.

During the Bloomberg Administration's tenure many of the large comprehensive high schools have closed and many more are in danger of closing.  To replace these now closed or closing schools are almost 500 small schools, many of them with themes such as preforming arts, sports, or journalism, just to name a few.  While the Bloomberg Administration has hailed them as a success because of an artificially  higher graduation rate, the truth is very different.  What are the problems with these small schools for many students?  let me count the ways.

Limited Curriculum:

All small schools have less than 500 students and there is usually a limited curriculum consisting of the core subjects, a selected Advance Placement course or two and electives that are connected to the school's theme.  In other words, a rigid and limited schedule. Many students regret going to these schools because of the lack of flexibility in course selection and are frustrated about the "one-size-fits-all" approach in scheduling.

Lack Of Extracurricular Activities:

One of the most recurring complainants by students in small schools are the limited number of extracurricular activities available in the school.  Some of the more fortunate schools that are located in a campus of a closed large comprehensive high school, pool their resources to have a PSAL sports team.  However, the majority of the small schools do not have that luxury and PSAL sports programs are usually limited to two or three sports teams compared to the twenty or more PSAL sports teams at the remaining large comprehensive high schools.  Furthermore, the small schools lack funds for clubs and only a few clubs are available to the students and the lack of variety of these clubs leave many students on the outside looking in..

The Staff:

During the time I was an ATR and moving to different schools weekly, I noticed that the small schools had only one teacher for each subject (two for English and Social Studies) and when I covered for these teachers some of the students complained that they do not like their teacher and would want to transfer to another class but can't because there is only one teacher teaching the course.  Moreover, the rigid scheduling of the small school makes a transfer virtually impossible.  Worse of all, many of the small schools are staffed by Leadership Academy Principals and untenured staff.  The inexperienced Administration and teaching staff puts these students at a competitive disadvantage as these students are guinea pigs as the staff must experience a steep learning curve.  This shows up in the abyssal college readiness scores of 11% for the small schools.  Too many students are caught in classes that they don't want and with teachers who are just learning how to teach themselves. Moreover, when study/teacher interaction is not good, the student has no option but to stay in the class since there is no alternative. The result from a student's perspective is that these small schools are more like a prison than a true learning institution where they can blossom and expand their academic and social horizons.

The Budget And Bureaucracy:

While the Bloomberg Administration made sure that these small schools receive their full funding, unlike the large, comprehensive high schools, the budget is still limited and a significant amount of school funds go to the Children First Network (CFN) Bureaucracy.  One Principal complained privately that over 15% of the school budget goes to unwanted and unnecessary programs that his CFN imposed on his school.  The bottom line is that too much money of an already tight budget goes for non-classroom programs and the result is that principals can't or won't hire experienced teachers to mentor the many inexperienced teachers who struggle with classroom instruction and management, because of their salary and this is especially true of the small schools.  Is it any wonder that the students quickly get disenchanted with their small school?


The bottom line is for the small schools to really succeed, the DOE must increase their budgets to provide more curriculum choices and extracurricular activities, eliminate the CFN's that siphon much needed funds for programs that do not work, and encourage not discourage the hiring of experienced teachers to improve the overall quality of classroom instruction at the schools.





.

The "Peer Effect" And DOE's Setting Up Targeted High Schools For Failure.

The Bill Gates sponsored MRDC study has once again falsely claimed that Bloomberg's small schools outperformed the closed large school they replaced. However, if one looks closely at the data the MRDC used to demonstrate their conclusions, you can find some very obvious flaws in the study.

First, and I must say most importantly, is the "peer effect". In the closed and closing high schools the DOE has been and are "warehousing" students with disabilities and self-contained special education students into these schools. Even the State Regents Chancellor, Meryl Tisch, has said as much here. When you put a significant amount of special needs students, especially ones with behavior and attendance issues, it will destabilize the school. Even the "good students" will realize that the school is becoming an unsafe and non-stable environment and start acting up as well. The impact of the "peer effect" on teenagers is a given and when a school gets too many struggling students, it will affect the student body. The study by NYC Community for Change shows this when it came to the self-contained students. Table 1 in the report found that the closed schools averaged almost 12% self-contained students of the school's student population while the small schools that replaced them averaged less than 4%! Moreover, under Chancellor Joel Klein these small schools were allowed to exclude special needs students in the school's first two years as policy during the 2005-2009 school years.

Second, many of the small schools have small class sizes, while the closed and targeted high schools are programed for 34 students, the contractual limit. Even many education reformers admit that class size does matter. Some of the principals of the more successful small schools have credited their academic achievement to small class sizes.

Third, the eighth grade attendance figures between the students going to the closed high schools and the small schools show a 10% difference for the class of 2006, with the lower figure at the soon to be closed high schools. That means that the small schools used attendance as a means to determine which student to select.

Fourth, the Annenberg Study debunks the assumptions used to justify the MRDC study and questions the success of these small schools. More information can be found on the NYC Public School Parents blog here.

Finally, the so called "unscreened small schools" are really screened. They ask for the student's grades, attendance and want recommendations from teachers and Administrators. Jennifer Jennigs reported this in her observations at three of these schools.

My observations revealed that many schools used applications, mandatory information sessions, and much stronger language to deter unwanted applicants. For example, 12 unscreened schools shared a similar application requiring that students provide the most recent report card and two letters of recommendation, one from an eighth-grade teacher and one from a guidance counselor, assistant principal, or principal. The application also asked for the student’s test scores, retention history, and involvement in advanced courses during the eighth grade. Finally, the application included additional questions requiring a narrative response….

The district’s application system provided opportunities for unscreened schools to choose higher achieving students. Through this computer system, each school received a list of students applying to the school, although the school did not know whether the student ranked it, for example, 1st or 12th. ….

In conclusion, the Bloomberg/Wallcott small schools are not a success that they falsely claim but a result of steering and "warehousing" the most difficult of students into closing and struggling schools. It is like comparing "apples and oranges". It is time the media exposed this travesty. For the DOE it is "children last"...always.

Why Mayor Bloomberg's Small Schools Are Destined To Fail Over The Long Run.

While I watch the once great comprehensive High Schools close (Jamaica, Beach Channel, Christopher Columbus, Washington Irving, etc), I am sent to the small schools that has replaced them. Being an ATR, I have a unique perspective of the small schools that have popped up throughout Queens and have found why many of them are destined to fail in a decade.

The reasons that this Bloomberg schools fail is that eventually the small schools end up with the same student population as the closed and closing large comprehensive high schools they replaced. Or as some would say it's like "rearranging the deck chairs". However, there are many more reasons that the small Bloomberg schools are destined to fail. Let's look at them.

• Poor Administration lead by a "Leadership Academy Principal".
• An inexperienced teaching staff with poor classroom management skills.
• Limited academic electives or extra-curricular activities.
• Pressure to keep student numbers up to ensure a continuous funding stream.

Let's look at each one of the problems.

Poor Administration: Many of the small schools have had "Leadership Academy Principals" in charge and quite a few of them lack the necessary classroom skills and mentoring to help their teaching staff. Furthermore, these principals have been taught to not collaborate with the teaching staff and will use intimidation tactics to get their way. The result is high teacher turnover and an unstable school environment. Finally, many of these principals tend to ignore student discipline issues and staff morale suffers. More than one Principal has told their staff that they will call in any student accusations to the investigative agencies OEO, OSI, and SCI no matter how frivolous it may seem to be.

Inexperienced Teaching Staff: Many of the small schools suffer from inexperienced teaching staffs, many of them untenured. Worse, a majority of these teachers come from the Teach For America and Teaching Fellows alternate certification programs and are not even certified! Is it any wonder that these small schools fail within the decade? While many of these teachers are enthusiastic, enthusiasm is not as important as curriculum knowledge and classroom management which these teachers lack.

Limited electives and extra-curricular activities: These small schools have limited or no electives that attract the well-rounded student and is usually the biggest complaint, even in the small specialized schools. The same goes for extra-curricular activities and many students feel cheated of a total high school experience without these necessary and important additions to the core subjects of the school.

Pressure to keep student numbers up: Many of the small schools are increasingly competing with each other for the diminishing amount of high achieving students. To ensure that the schools keep up their student numbers and funding, these schools are taking increasing number of students that are less than academically inclined. With only a few remaining large comprehensive high schools available, the high need and academically challenged students are finding their way into the Bloomberg small schools and the "student screening" that was allowed previously by the DOE is increasingly frowned on and those wonderful academic gains are rapidly disappearing and in some cases have disappeared altogether.

The UFT's Jackie Bennett did a study that showed that the "college readiness" of the small Bloomberg schools were lower than the larger schools and this shows very conclusively that the Bloomberg small schools are a failure and the sooner we go back to giving the children of New York City a total learning environment the better.

The Bloomberg & Klein Love Affair With The Small Schools Have Resulted In The Destruction Of The Large Neighborhood Schools - What Else Is New?

All of a sudden the news media is bringing up the fact that the large neighborhood high schools are suffering as the influx of themed small schools and favored charter schools have dumped the unwanted and hardest to educate, special education and English language learners into the large traditional high schools. The result is large class sizes, lower graduation rates, and discipline problems. The New York Times, The Daily News, and Gotham Schools have published articles about this student dumping issue. In fact, I and other bloggers have brought up this issue for the last couple of years. For example back in June of 2006 I wrote a post complaining about this very issue. In addition, not only are these "at risk" students being dumped into the large neighborhood high schools but the small and charter schools are doing their best to exclude the "not ready for promotion eighth graders" but are promoted anyway. This process has resulted in massive overcrowding in the large traditional high schools as I reported previously Here. Now we have a report called the New Marketplace, which the New School for Management and Urban Policy published showing the damage that Mayor Mike and Chancellor Klein has done to the large neighborhood high schools. Marc Epstein, in his Daily News opinion piece also identified the tricks Tweed uses to massage the graduation statistics in these increasingly attacked schools that hide the escalating problems done to them by the Bloomberg/Klein policy initiatives that favor the small schools.

Again the DOE statistics on graduation rates are suspect as the small schools show a significant drop in their graduation rates when these schools are required to take their fair share of "at risk" students. Furthermore, these small schools suffer from high teacher turnover, increasingly larger class sizes, and an unstable administration which eventually reduces the effectiveness of the small schools. Finally, these schools will end up no better than the large schools they replaced and without the wide range of activities that a large traditional high school offers.

In other words, "Children Last" continues.

What Mayor Mike & Chancellor Joel Really Want For The New York City Public Schools

The New York Post, the media's propaganda mouthpiece of Bloomberg and Klein have coined a slogan "City Schools City Rules" to justify the continuation of mayoral control. However, what does Mayor Mike and Chancellor Joel really want for the NYC Public Schools? To me the two have mapped out policies to destroy public education as we know it. They have gained power and have set up a Trojan Horse program that will shatter the public schools from the inside and out. The losers are the parents, students, and teachers of the NYC Public Schools.. Let's look how Mayor Mike and Chancellor Joel are trying to achieve their goal.

First, they are hiring unqualified Principals, with little or no classroom experience, and gave them total control and backing to run their schools as they please. These "Leadership Academy Principals" either don't know how or don't want to work collaboratively with the school staff. The result is that the schools are in chaos and the students suffer the consequences as quality teachers flee the school.

Second, the terrible twosome have developed a policy of breaking up the large comprehensive schools and replace them with small or Charter Schools that encourage separation due to race, religion, cultural identity, gender, and sexual orientation. These very same schools exclude the most needy of students including Special Education, English Language Learners, and behavioral problems . Only in the NYC Schools does Brown vs. The Board of Education needs to be revisited 55 years later.l

Third, Tweed has made an effort to hire "inexpensive newbie teachers" at the expense of senior and more expensive teachers. Despite Tweed's propaganda that every child should have a quality teacher, the reality is very different. Mayor Mike and Chancellor Joel's overriding concern is to provide "education on the cheap". That is to hire inexperienced and inexpensive teachers, abuse them until they burnout and hope they leave the system before they are vested. The result of their misguided strategy is to have 1400 ATRs and 800 "rubber room" teachers, most over the age of 50 being forced out of the classroom. Further, to make it easier for the Principals to remove teachers without a financial penalty, the teacher was off the Principal's payroll after 60 days. Before it was a year or more. Consequently, the students experience rapid teacher turnover and teachers who have their own learning curve while trying to teach the students.

Fourth, despite receiving extra funds to reduce class size from the State, the classroom remains as overcrowded as ever with classrooms averaging 28 students and in the large overcrowded high schools 34 students. Compare this to to the small/Charter Schools who average 21 students in a classroom. Where did the extra State money go? Certainly not to the classroom.

Fifth, the DOE has an out of whack discipline code that fails to properly punish students but goes out of their way to charge teachers with verbal abuse/corporal punishment. In fact in the Chancellor's regulation A-421 this statement says it all.

"Nothing in this regulation, however, prevents a supervisor from counseling or disciplining an employee for inappropriate speech or conduct that is not otherwise in violation of this regulation".

In other words any action by a teacher can be result in a disciplinary charge simply by the Principal saying so!

Finally, the increase in paperwork and data collection allows for little free time for the teacher to properly evaluate and give more help to the students. It is laughable that Joel Klein told the New York Times that he could envision a 30% drop in teachers as technology would allow students to do their work at home or the library. Didn't I read in the Daily News that a high school teacher from Francis Lewis teaches in a crumbling trailer with no heat? In fact Arthur Goldstien's quote was:

" My high school was built to hold 1,800 but enrolls 4,450 students. My kids sit in a crumbling trailer, with no technology and often no heat in the winter. So much for efficiency".

Crumbling trailers, lack of heat, no technology. What drug is Joel Klein using when he is talking about distance learning? Maybe he is talking about the bizarro world that Treed seems to inhabit that would explain his distance learning comment.

I could bring up the gimmicks the DOE does like their "No Bid Contracts", Non-Educators in charge of education, and the increased headcount at Tweed while the field offices and schools are starved for funds and laying off workers. However, I believe I made my point. The Trojan Horse policies of Mayor Mike and Chancellor Joel is destroying the NYC Public Schools as "Children Last" continues.

Why Don't Quality Teachers Go To The Small Schools?

In an Edwize article a comment by the respected Peter Goodman of Unity (yes I do respect his opinon - unlike the rest of the Unity hacks) stated that the small schools would have welcomed any of these excessed teachers if they only showed up for an interview? That left the unaware of why wouldn't an experienced quality teacher interview in a small school that would welcome them with open arms? Well, if I have one problem with Peter, it is his bias in pushing small schools and ignore the problems with many of them. Including their inability to attract experienced quality teachers. Therefore, after talking with a few excessed teachers who did interview at small schools, I decided to come up with a hypothetical interview of an excessed Chemistry teacher at the 350 student small school called The School of Environmental Justice.

School: Why do you want a position at our school?

Teacher: I want to teach in a classroom, not being a day-to-day sub in my home school.

School: Why?

Teacher: I fell embarrassed and my self-esteem has suffered in working in a school that no
longer can use me as a classroom teacher. It's difficult to face my ex students as a sub.

School: What did you teach in your school?

Teacher: Chemistry, AP Chemistry, AP Environmental Science.

School: Have you taught Living Environment, Earth Science, & Physics?

Teacher: Not recently, and I have never taught Physics.

School: In our school we have no money for AP courses and you will be required to teach all four
Regents science courses.

Teacher: You mean four preps?

School Yes.

Teacher: Will lab preparation be my professional assignment?

School: Yes, but in our school the teachers must do an administrative assignment as well.

Teacher: Like what?

School: Hallway duty, cafeteria patrol, or policing the bathrooms.

Teacher: Are there any other duties you expect me to do?

School? Yes, we expect you to volunteer for Saturday instruction and help in our after school
program.

Teacher: Will I get paid for the extra work?

School: Sorry, we don't have the funds to pay the teachers anything extra.

Teacher: Let me get this straight. I must teach four different Regents science courses, volunteer to teach on Saturday for free, do a professional and administrative assignment, and help out in the after school program?

School: Yes, and by the way, you will become a team leader and spend an occasional lunch with your group of students. See, we can only afford one guidance officer and the teachers must do double duty.

Teacher: Thank you for the interview but I think I will stay at my school as an ATR until a real teaching position becomes available.

Small School" Bias "- The DOE Lies & Our Union's Silence

The federal Department of Education is investigating the complaints filed against the New York City DOE by the Citywide Council on High Schools who claimed that the small high schools were not getting their fair share of students with disabilities and limited English skills. Obviously, the federal agency found the complaint valid and has proceeded to remedy the discrimination in enrollment practices. Even at a UFT Chapter Leader meeting the State representative stated that she was concerned about the "bias" in assigning students at the high school level.

What did the federal agency find that warrants the investigation? Well, for starters the feds used statistics that are commonly available, like the the typical large high school has a population that consists of 34% of the students with disabilities or have limited English skills. By contrast the typical small schools are limited to 12% of these students and this figure is even lower for the first three years where the small schools are allowed to further "screen out" these students. Moreover, the "not ready for promotion eigth graders" who are promoted anyway are almost always assigned to the large high schools. Finally the small schools use "skimming" to filter out unruly students and select students with involved parents. Talk about discrimination in enrollment practices. Even if you were to believe (I certaintly don't) the DOE filtered statistics, you would still find that the average large high school will have 24% of it's student population made up of special education and limited English proficiency students compared to 16% for the small schools, an 8% difference!

Incredibly, the DOE denies that they discriminate. City DOE council Michael Best claims that there was "no basis for any inappropriate findings". How could Michael Best say this when the chief executive of the DOE's small schools, Garth Harries stated that "a deliberate policy to exclude otherwise eligible students with disabilities (special education) from the small schools during the first three years of each school's existence". I guess if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth according to DOE. By the way, people who heard Mr. Harries speech believe that this exclusionary policy appears to also include the limited English proficiency applicants to the small schools.

Is our union aware of the DOE discrimination? Of course they are! Many commenters have brought up the question why the UFT has not challenged the DOE on the discrimination in enrollment practices between the small & large high schools? Why did it take an outside group to complain to the Federal agency about this exclusion policy? The UFT response? Deafening silence! It's as if the union secretly buys into the DOE discrimination. How else is one to think?

It is a pity when our uncaring union collaborates with a lying DOE to screw the teachers and the students of the large high schools in the City.