Educate All Students: Larry Miller's Blog

November 16, 2015

Be Part of and learn from the Chicago Education Movement. Attend the Chicago Teachers for Social Justice Curriculum Fair.

Filed under: Chicago — millerlf @ 2:37 pm

Meet the Dyett hunger strikers. Meet community activists. Meet teachers. Meet the movement fighting Rahm Emanuel.

For more information go to: http://www.teachersforjustice.org/

The 14th Annual TSJ Curriculum Fair is on November 21, 2015 at Kenwood HS, 5015 S. Blackstone Ave., Chicago

 

BLM: UW Madison Support for Missouri Student’s Struggle

Filed under: BlackLivesMatter — millerlf @ 9:10 am

Wisconsin State Journal

Last Thursday, November 12, thousands of students across the country took part in demonstrations at college campuses to shine a light on what they say are racial problems at their own schools.

Hundreds of people, mostly UW-Madison students, gathered in front of Bascom Hall Thursday night surrounding the statue of Abraham Lincoln in solidarity with their peers at the University of Missouri.

After listening to speeches, they marched to Library Mall chanting what has become a common refrain at rallies locally and around the country: “Black lives matter!” and “No justice, no peace!” The group reconvened for more speeches before marching up State Street to the Capitol Square.

Greg Mosby, 28, a black UW graduate student in the astronomy department, did his undergraduate degree at Yale, which like Missouri has seen students of color speaking out about racism on campus. Mosby said he has been a part of the movement at Yale – “at least digitally.” “It seems like nationwide there’s momentum that’s building to make institutions more socially just and I wanted to be a part of it,” he said. Mosby said he has not encountered racism in his department. “But I am a lucky example,” he said. “I hear stories from graduate students and undergraduates that would make you shudder.”

Miona Short, 20, a black UW-Madison junior, said she experiences discrimination all the time, and had as recently as the day before. “America is a racist place and I think oftentimes – especially in the Midwest – we try to dismiss racism as something in the South because when people think of racism they think of Texas or they think of klans.”

From Boston College to campuses at the University of California, dozens of schools saw walkouts and rallies.
While the protests that toppled the Missouri president were triggered in large part by complaints about slurs and other overt racism on campus, some students at Thursday’s rallies said it’s a subtler brand of prejudice that motivated them to take a stand. Many said they face daily instances of casual racism and insensitivity. There’s even a word on campuses these days for subtle slights against minorities: microaggression. “It’s more the daily microaggressions than the large situations,” said Akosua Opokua-Achampong, a sophomore at Boston College. “Those also hurt.”

Stories of discrimination aren’t new, students said. But many said the revolt at Missouri has driven them to talk about it and confront it.

In recent days and weeks, students at some colleges have presented administrators with their own demands, inspired by those of the protesters at Missouri. Often, the demands call for greater diversity on the faculty, more spending on scholarships for minorities, more instruction on tolerance and sensitivity, and more resources such as cultural centers. “You can’t just bring students in; you’ve got to have faculty and staff members in key positions and you’ve got to be current,” said Roger Pulliam, senior faculty adviser of the National Black Student Union, based in Whitewater.

Following is a letter of support to Missouri Students:

Associated Students of Madison
333 East Campus Mall, Student Activity Center Rm 4301 Madison, WI 53715
Phone: 608/265-4ASM Fax: 608/265-5637 E-mail: info@asm.wisc.edu
http://www.asm.wisc.edu facebook.com/ASMStudentGov Twitter: @asmstudentgovt

November 13th, 2015

Dear Missouri Student Association,
The Associated Students of Madison stands in solidarity with the Missouri Student Association,
specifically the black student body, against the racial discrimination and racist hate crimes that
have garnered national attention over the past week.

We commend your strength and unity in systematically changing your institution and demanding
solutions to a failed system. Your organization and the students of Mizzou have shown that the
student voice is powerful and influential. There is no limit to what students can achieve by
coming together as one.

At the University of WisconsinMadison black students face similar barriers to an equitable
education, and we must fight back. As another predominantly white institution, UWMadison
often neglects to acknowledge and act on the negative experiences of students of color on our
campus. Students have the power to change this reality.

Over one thousand students at UWMadison stood in solidarity with the black students of
Mizzou in a Black Out March last night. It was a powerful symbol of what our campus can
accomplish when we unite. Moving forward, we will continue to protest and stand together until
all students can learn, live, and work in a safe environment. You all have shown us first hand
that institutional change can come from the movement of students.

#ConcernedStudent1950 #InSolidarityWithMizzou

Sincerely,
Madison Laning, Chair
Kyla Kaplan, Vice Chair
Angelito Tenorio, University Affairs Chair
Associated Students of Madison

Role of Charter Schools?

Filed under: Charter Schools — millerlf @ 8:56 am

Charter Schools as Incubators or Charter Schools Inc.?
Posted: 11/15/2015 Randi Weingarten President of AFT
When you hear the words “charter school,” what comes to mind? High expectations? High student attrition? High achievement? Lack of transparency?

There’s no right or wrong answer, because charter schools, like other public and private schools, vary widely. The top-ranked high school in Louisiana is a unionized charter school. On the flip side, a recent study of students enrolled in online charter schools found that they lost 180 days of learning in math over the 180-day school year. (You read that right.)

Charter schools are publicly funded schools with flexibility in program design and operations. The late AFT President Albert Shanker was one of the first proponents, believing public school teachers could incubate innovative ideas, sharing successes and learning from setbacks. That was our goal in creating University Prep, a charter school in the South Bronx that the United Federation of Teachers co-founded with Green Dot Public Schools when I was UFT president. Now in our eighth year, 98 percent of students graduate, and almost all go on to college. The goal was never to undermine the many extraordinary district public schools–or to close or make it harder for traditional public schools.

Unfortunately, some charter proponents have shifted the intent of charters from incubating ideas and sharing successes to competing for market share and taxpayer dollars. A pro-charter group in New York recently ran deplorable ads suggesting they care more about equity than Mayor de Blasio does. The reality is that some charter school operators want to take public funds yet behave like private entities that can play by different rules.

Charter schools tend to enroll fewer students with disabilities, fewer English language learners, and a less-poor population of students than do nearby public schools. Reuters has reported on practices some charter operators use to “get the students they want.” Some require character references from a religious or community leader, entry exams, or completion of lengthy forms (often only in English). A Philadelphia charter school accepted applications only one day each year–at a suburban country club.

Some charter schools reportedly “counsel out” or expel students just before state testing day. Recent exposés revealed that the Success Academy Charter Schools chain has suspended or expelled children as young as kindergartners–often for minor infractions–at a rate seven times higher than elementary students in New York City’s public schools.

A new report revealed more than $200 million in fraud, waste and mismanagement in the 15 states examined of the 43 states that allow charters. The U.S. Department of Education this fall awarded $71 million for charter schools to Ohio–whose charter schools are notorious for financial and ethical scandals and academic results that lag far behind traditional public schools–prompting an outcry from the state auditor. Federal officials have since placed restrictions on the funds.

Since 1995, the Education Department has awarded more than $3 billion to create and expand charter schools throughout the country, despite warnings by its inspector general that the department has provided inadequate oversight of federal funds sent to charter schools.

These failings hurt the charter school operators who are trying to operate aboveboard with students’ best interests in mind. And rampant charter expansion undermines traditional public schools. A proposal to “charterize” half of the public schools in Los Angeles would not just disrupt the public school system, it would destroy it. Neighborhood public schools would be stripped of essential resources, programs and personnel, and the district would be bankrupted. These schemes, also playing out in Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and elsewhere, aim not to supplement public schools but to supplant them. There must be robust debates about proposals that so radically privatize public education.

“Charter” does not mean “better.” A well-regarded Stanford University study found that 25 percent of charter schools perform significantly better than traditional public schools, while 31 percent produce academic results that are significantly worse.

Hillary Clinton, a longtime supporter of charter schools, was recently lambasted when she called for accountability for all public schools. She noted that some charter schools “don’t take the hardest-to-teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them. And so the public schools are often in a no-win situation, because they do, thankfully, take everybody, and then they don’t get the resources or the help and support that they need to be able to take care of every child’s education.” She’s right.

The public education landscape is enriched by having many options–neighborhood public schools, magnet schools, community schools, schools that focus on career and technical education, and charter schools. They all must be held to educational, financial and ethical standards, particularly now, given that half the children in public schools are poor. This is a solemn responsibility to both students and the public.

Follow Randi Weingarten on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/rweingarten

November 1, 2015

When You Read Alan Borsuk’s Commentary on the MPS Debate About Pulaski and Carmen, You Know the Milwaukee Journal Is Not the New York Times

Filed under: Charter Schools,MPS Buildings — millerlf @ 8:33 am

Whenever the New York Times runs articles on charter schools in that city, they include the following request to the public:

Are you a current or former charter school student in New York City? We would like to hear from your perspective about what it’s like to attend a charter school. Please email cityroom@nytimes.com with your response, which will be kept confidential and will not be published. However, an editor or reporter may contact you for a possible future article.

Why? Because the paper regularly reports on what is happening inside the walls of charter schools. They report the successes. But they also report the failings. They are especially interested in policies followed by some New York charters with the “de-selection” of special education students, ELL students, those with chronic behavior problems or performing low on standardized tests. See, for example, the Times article on a charter school’s “Got to Go” list.

Where is the investigation on this vital issue in the Milwaukee press? Good investigative reporting on the inner-workings of voucher and independent charter schools in Milwaukee would draw the interest of the public.

Reporting on debate that occurred at Thursday’s school board meeting would have been a perfect time, at least to raise questions. Board members who oppose  the proposed “collaboration” between Pulaski, a traditional public school, and Carmen, a privately run program chartered with MPS, advanced arguments based on data and conversations with staff, parents and others with first-hand knowledge.

Rather than present the arguments that came up in the debate, including concerns about Carmen’s discipline and de-selection practices, Borsuk reduced his reporting to a “profile in courage” of one board member. See Borsuk’s commentary at: Borsuk

Director Joseph and I spoke to our alternative approach to reforming Pulaski, but Borsuk again chose not to report on it.

Our approach is centered on the need to serve all students on Milwaukee’s south side. We addressed two key areas. The first would be to grow high performing high school seats by re-designing Pulaski during the present school year, and significantly expanding its numbers (The need for significantly expanding high school space would be addressed with the redesign.) The second way that we saw growing high school seats and giving students increased access to those high performing seats would be to create a grade 6-8 middle school in Pulaski as a feeder school to Pulaski High School. This middle school would help offer a pathway for the many Southside elementary schools that end at 5th grade, including nearby Zablocki and Lincoln Ave elementary schools.

To meet these needs Director Joseph and I were planning to propose the following motion but Roberts Rules of Order prevented it because a substitute motion was adopted.

Our motion states:
I move-
That the administration immediately begin a redesign of the Pulaski High School program with a bilingual component (and possible IB) using a process that-
• Uses the best practices of the Bayview redesign.

• Includes an all inclusive committee of parents, staff, students and community overseen by the administration.

• Develop an RFP for a 6-8th grade middle school to be housed in Pulaski for up 600 students, starting in the fall of 2017. The Pulaski middle school would be a feeder to the high school and create a pathway from nearby Zablocki and Lincoln, along with other South-side elementary schools that only go through 5th grade. The middle school would provide a bilingual program. Its design and RFP development would be part of the discussion of the committee to redesign Pulaski High School.

• That Pulaski will not have 9th grade in the upcoming 2016-2017 school year. 9th graders will be recruited for the school year 2017-2018. They will be the first graduating class of the redesigned Pulaski High School.

• The administration begin the discussion of the redesign in November 2015.

• That the administration work to maintain the Pulaski teaching staff committed to the redesign and the necessary accreditation/certification for the new program. The district commit to working to relieve the cost of necessary recertification.

• And, that the administration immediately find a building to house the 200 students designated for Carmen’s Southside charter expansion.

Charter School “De-selection”, “Counseling Out”, High Behavioral Suspension Rates and Now, “Got to Go” Lists

Filed under: Charter Schools,No-nonsence schools — millerlf @ 6:33 am

Many independent charter schools across the country have been identified for finding ways to rid their schools of special education students, disruptive students and low-testing students.

At a Success Academy Charter School, Singling Out Pupils Who Have ‘Got to Go’

By Kate Taylor OCT. 29, 2015 NYTimes (See at: http://tinyurl.com/nkrxgpq)

The Success Academy charter school in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, where the “Got to Go” list was created at the principal’s direction.

From the time Folake Ogundiran’s daughter started kindergarten at a Success Academy charter school in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, the girl struggled to adjust to its strict rules.

She racked up demerits for not following directions or not keeping her hands folded in her lap. Sometimes, after being chastised, she threw tantrums. She was repeatedly suspended for screaming, throwing pencils, running away from school staff members or refusing to go to another classroom for a timeout.

One day last December, the school’s principal, Candido Brown, called Ms. Ogundiran and said her daughter, then 6, was having a bad day. Mr. Brown warned that if she continued to do things that were defiant and unsafe — including, he said, pushing or kicking, moving chairs or tables, or refusing to go to another classroom — he would have to call 911, Ms. Ogundiran recalled. Already feeling that her daughter was treated unfairly, she went to the school and withdrew her on the spot.

Success Academy, the high-performing charter school network in New York City, has long been dogged by accusations that its remarkable accomplishments are due, in part, to a practice of weeding out weak or difficult students. The network has always denied it. But documents obtained by The New York Times and interviews with 10 current and former Success employees at five schools suggest that some administrators in the network have singled out children they would like to see leave.

At Success Academy Fort Greene, the same day that Ms. Ogundiran heard from the principal, her daughter’s name was one of 16 placed on a list drawn up at his direction and shared by school leaders.
The heading on the list was “Got to Go.”
Nine of the students on the list later withdrew from the school. Some of their parents said in interviews that while their children attended Success, their lives were upended by repeated suspensions and frequent demands that they pick up their children early or meet with school or network staff members. Four of the parents said that school or network employees told them explicitly that the school, whose oldest students are now in the third grade, was not right for their children and that they should go elsewhere.

The current and former employees said they had observed similar practices at other Success schools. According to those employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs or their relationships with people still at the network, school leaders and network staff members explicitly talked about suspending students or calling parents into frequent meetings as ways to force parents to fall in line or prompt them to withdraw their children.

Last year, for instance, the principal of Success Academy Harlem 2 Upper, Lavinia Mackall, told teachers not to automatically send annual re-enrollment forms home to certain students, because the school did not want those students to come back, two former members of the school’s staff said. Ms. Mackall said that her comments had been misinterpreted and that she was trying to encourage parents to take the school’s requirements seriously, but that she also did not believe the school was right for all students.

In another example, a current employee said, a network lawyer in a conversation with colleagues described a particularly unruly student’s withdrawal as “a big win” for the school.

In a written response to questions, Success Academy’s spokeswoman, Ann Powell, said that the “Got to Go” list was a mistake and that the network quickly got wind of it and reprimanded Mr. Brown, the principal.

Ms. Powell said that Success schools did not push children out, and that what might look like an effort to nudge students out the door was actually an attempt to help parents find the right environment for their children. Some on the list required special education settings that Success could not offer them, she said.

Mr. Brown said in an email that he thought the disruptive behavior of the students on the list was dragging the whole school down, and “I felt I couldn’t turn the school around if these students remained.”

Once he was reprimanded, though, he and his staff tried to work with those students, he said.

Even so, five left before the end of the school year, and four more departed over the summer.

As to the child’s withdrawal being a “big win,” Ms. Powell said, “if we have a parent whose child really needs to be in a different school, which was a better learning environment for him/her to succeed in and the parent had trouble accepting their child’s needs, might that be characterized as a ‘big win?’ Yes.”
On Thursday, after this article was published online, Eva S. Moskowitz, a former New York City councilwoman who runs Success Academy, was asked by reporters about the “Got to Go” list. Ms. Moskowitz said that given her network’s size, “mistakes are sometimes made.” She declined to answer further questions, saying she would hold a news conference on Friday to discuss “the mistake that was made in that particular case.”

Frequent Suspensions
Success Academy is the city’s largest charter school network. It has 34 schools, and plans to grow to 70 in five or six years.

The network serves mostly black and Hispanic students and is known for exacting behavior rules. Even the youngest pupils are expected to sit with their backs straight, their hands clasped and their eyes on the teacher, a posture that the network believes helps children pay attention. Ms. Moskowitz has said she believes children learn better with structure and consistency in the classroom. Good behavior and effort are rewarded with candy and prizes, while infractions and shoddy work are penalized with reprimands, loss of recess time, extra assignments and, in some cases, suspensions as early as kindergarten.

Charter schools are privately run but publicly funded and admit children by lottery. Similar to a traditional public school, a charter school must provide a seat to a child who has enrolled unless the student withdraws, is expelled, turns 21 or moves out of the state. Charter schools must follow strict guidelines before formally expelling any student, and Success has done so only once since its first school opened in 2006. But Success’s critics accuse it of pushing children out by making their parents’ lives so difficult that they withdraw.

Suspensions at Success, which typically last one or two days, are frequent compared with traditional public schools. In the 2012-13 school year, the most recent one for which state data is available, Success schools suspended between 4 percent and 23 percent of their students at least once, with most suspending more than 10 percent. According to the most recent statistics from the city’s Education Department, from 2013-14, traditional public schools suspended 3 percent of students that academic year.

Ms. Moskowitz has said that suspensions can make parents recognize the seriousness of their children’s misbehavior and that removing students who are acting dangerously from the classroom protects teachers and allows them to do their jobs more effectively.

Principals at Success, many in their 20s and 30s, frequently consult with a team of lawyers before suspending a student or requiring a parent to pick up a child early every day. It was a member of that team who described a student’s withdrawal from the Success Academy in Union Square to colleagues as a “big win,” the current employee said.

James D. Merriman, the chief executive officer of the New York City Charter School Center, a group that advocates and supports charter schools, said it was unrealistic to expect any given school to be a good fit for every child. And Mr. Merriman noted that the city had many traditional public schools that required a test or other screening for admission, schools that by definition did not serve all students.

“I think if you asked most charter leaders they’d say that their goal is to be a fit for as broad an array of children as possible,” he said, “and they’re working very hard to that end.”

Under Pressure
Mr. Brown arrived at Success Academy Fort Greene, which shares a white-brick building with a public school in the shadow of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, in November 2014. He was the school’s third principal since it opened a year earlier, and he said he found the school, with 224 students, out of control. Children behaved violently, he said, and teachers were overwhelmed and starting to feel hopeless.

“If the school had been better managed from the start, then we could have done better by these students and probably could have kept more of them,” he said in an email. “However, it is also the case that for some of them, Success wasn’t the best place. Some of them needed an alternative setting with highly specialized services. And some parents just didn’t agree with our philosophy.”

Some of the parents whose children were on the “Got to Go” list acknowledged that they did not agree with how the school managed behavior. But several also said that both before and after the list was created, they thought school and network employees were trying to push them out.

Folake Wimbish said her son, who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, was suspended 19 times last year, in first grade, and missed 26 days. Success said her son was intellectually gifted but struggled with behavior, “often hitting, kicking, biting and spitting at other children and adults.”

In early December, while Ms. Wimbish was pushing the school to evaluate her son for special education services, she was called to a meeting in Lower Manhattan with the network’s assistant general counsel and its associate special education manager, Julie Freese. She said Ms. Freese told her that, because of his suspensions, her son was missing out on his education, and she needed to think about his well-being.

“She said, ‘Why don’t you just put him in another school, because he’s suffering,’ ” Ms. Wimbish said.

Ms. Wimbish withdrew her son at the end of the year, because with the suspensions and calls to pick him up, she said, “I started feeling like I was going to have a breakdown.” He now attends Public School 119 in Brooklyn, where Ms. Wimbish said he was very happy and had not been suspended once.

Monique Jeffrey said her son, who was in kindergarten last year, was suspended so many times she “stopped counting.” In the middle of the year, Ms. Jeffrey said, the school’s education manager, Rebecca Fleischman, told her that her son had emotional and behavioral issues the school could not handle and that she should look for another school. Ms. Jeffrey withdrew him at the end of the year.

Nicey Givens, the mother of another student on the list, said her son, also a kindergartner last year, was suspended many times, in some cases, the school told her, for fighting. Ms. Fleischman said in an email that a special education committee of the school district recommended that the boy be placed in a type of special education class the school did not offer in his grade. Ms. Givens recalled that Ms. Fleischman told her the school did not have the resources to serve her son and offered to help find him a placement in a regular public school. Her son now attends P.S. 287.

Ms. Powell, the Success spokeswoman, said the charter network was deeply committed to serving special education students and it was prevented from offering more special education classes because the city had not granted it enough classrooms. “Helping some students find better placements is not wrong,” she added.

Around the time the “Got to Go” list was created, Mr. Brown and the school’s dean spoke with the principal of another Success school in Brooklyn, and the dean shared with her colleagues some notes from that conversation. The notes were part of an email exchange shown to The Times by a former Success employee.

The notes describe several suggestions for dealing with families who are “not on board” and discussed 911 calls.

The notes also appear to allude to the possibility of getting one child on the “Got to Go” list classified as a 12:1:1 special education student. Those students are entitled to classrooms limited to 12 students, with one teacher and one aide, so Success Academy, which offers only five such classes in a network serving 11,000 students, might not be able to meet the needs of every 12:1:1 student.

Ms. Fleischman, the education manager, warned her colleagues in a follow-up email that the goal should not have been put in an email and that, in any case, a 12:1:1 classification “does not guarantee a withdrawal.”

Asked this month about that remark, she said that she was saying only that the parent of a 12:1:1 student would not be required to take the student out, and was not alluding to any effort to ensure the child would leave.

Mixed Messages
Some of the parents whose children were on the list said that while some school employees were advising them to leave, others were sending reassuring messages.

On Feb. 2, a teacher, Hannah Hodari, wrote an email to Ms. Jeffrey about her son’s progress in math. “I can totally tell you have been working with him, he was very enthusiastic today and his work and focus was much improved,” the teacher wrote.

In June, after Ms. Jeffrey had decided to withdraw her son, Ms. Hodari urged her to reconsider, saying in an email that she would be “so excited” to see him return and “watch him be successful” in first grade.

“However,” the teacher added, “I also understand where your concerns and doubts come from.”

Ms. Powell, the spokeswoman, said: “We make tremendous efforts to keep all children. We do this because morally once a child enters our doors, they are ours, and we want them to succeed.”

She also named three mothers of children on the “Got to Go” list who were still at the school, saying they would be able to describe the efforts that Success had made to keep their students there.

One of those mothers, Aisha Cooper, said her son, now in second grade, had struggled with his behavior because he was easily distracted, had difficulty keeping his eyes on the teacher and would sometimes call out in class. She said he was suspended once in kindergarten for throwing a snow globe across the room, and she recalled his kindergarten teacher’s once suggesting that maybe Success was not a good fit for him.

Ms. Cooper said she never felt as if the school wanted him gone. She said she liked the school so much that she was planning to send her daughter there for kindergarten next year.

But when a reporter asked if she knew that her son had been included last year on the “Got to Go” list, Ms. Cooper said she did not.

“I’m a little upset about that,” she said after a minute. “They could have let me know he was on a list that he ‘had to go.’ And I would have asked them why, because he’s not a bad child. He just talks too much sometimes.

“He doesn’t hit kids, he doesn’t knock kids over, he doesn’t scream, he just talks too much. So I don’t understand why he’s on this list.”

Are you a current or former charter school student in New York City? We would like to hear from your perspective about what it’s like to attend a charter school. Please email cityroom@nytimes.com with your response, which will be kept confidential and will not be published. However, an editor or reporter may contact you for a possible future article.

A version of this article appears in print on October 30, 2015, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Charter School’s ‘Got to Go’ List Singled Out Difficult Students .

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.