So simple, yet somehow so hard for many to understand

Posted by Philissa at 7:45 AM

The On Education column this week in the Times, by reporter David Herszenhorn, addresses a simple idea that, if actually understood by legislators and the general public, could dramatically change the way schools are governed: "Working with children looks easy. It is not."

Herzsenhorn writes that covering the schools has shown him that the challenges facing people working in schools are broader than most on the outside imagine. He writes:

School professionals are called upon not only to educate children, but also to nurture curiosity and civic values, and even to teach the most basic manners. ... Not only do professional educators have to know how to deal with children, they have to be clever about soothing an even wackier bunch: parents.

The daily work in schools is so hard that most educators in the system do not distinguish between the chancellor’s office and the mayor, the labor unions and state government, the teachers’ contract and the federal No Child Left Behind law when they complain, frequently, that the “system” is against them.

Forces above and beyond school level often make the work in classrooms more difficult. And the work in classrooms is difficult enough.

While this notion might seem like a no-brainer, the fact is that teachers and administrators are continually asked to improve students' performance -- measured in standardized test scores -- without being able to address kids' vast "non-academic" needs. And when teachers struggle to raise scores, their quality is impugned. Sometimes criticizing teachers is justified, but often it's a smokescreen to distract from the more complicated factors underlying student performance.

A quarter of kids in New York City live in poverty (as do 1 in 6 kids nationally). The city's expansion of the summer meals program underscores the reality that many kids here are often hungry. This reality, like many others beyond teachers' control, makes it hard for kids to learn. Not until legislators sincerely address the "forces above and beyond school level" can successfully teaching kids get easier.

Parents: DOE's spending plan in "bad faith"

Posted by Philissa at 2:09 PM

Above: Parents at the press conference demonstrate the minor effect of reducing class size by less than one kid per class. Philissa Cramer/Insideschools.org

At this morning's press conference on the steps of City Hall, Robert Jackson, chair of the City Council's education committee, and small class size advocates railed against the DOE's "bad faith effort" to reduce class size, as outlined in the city's proposed spending plan. They also took aim at the DOE's "lack of transparency" with the hard numbers behind this initiative and others; in particular, they noted that it's unclear just how many of the 1,300 new teachers the DOE says it is hiring will have their own classrooms. Here are some sound bites from the press conference:

Jackson: "We said, where's the rest of the plan? ... You question [DOE officials], and most of the time they will not come up with answers. ... There's so much lack of transparency, I cannot tell [what's true] as chair of the education committee."

Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters: "We asked [DOE officials] how many new general education classes will there be? They couldn't tell us."

Noreen Connell of the Educational Priorities Panel: "What is the advantage of this bad faith effort? What can be gained by not reducing class size?"

Several people who spoke also decried the mid-summer timeline for responding to the DOE's spending plan, which could prevent people from being able to get information quickly and weigh in with their feedback. You can give feedback on the plan at five public hearings on the Contracts for Excellence this week. See the Insideschools calendar for details.

BREAKING NEWS: CFE press conference Sunday

Posted by Philissa at 6:45 PM

City Council Education Committee Chair Robert Jackson will be holding a press conference on the steps of City Hall at 11:30 a.m. Sunday to address the DOE's proposal for how to spend the long-awaited Campaign for Fiscal Equity money. Jackson was an original plaintiff in the case. According to the NYC Public School Parents blog, Jackson will be joined by representatives from a variety of other educational organizations, and all parents and children are welcome. Map

(Slightly) smaller classes on the way (updated)

Posted by Unknown at 6:27 PM

In an extension of our recent post about NYC's use of $1.03 billion in additional state education funding ($228 million of which must conform to Governor Spitzer's Contract for Excellence requirements), the Times reports today on Chancellor Klein's plans for the money.

Specifically, Klein talks about how the Department of Ed plans to fulfill the Contract for Excellence requirements with the required $228 million: $106 million of it will reduce class size by hiring 1300 new teachers. Other funding will extend class time and provide more resources for training and development.

This is the first I've heard about Klein and the DOE acknowledging that Fair Student Funding would meet the requirements for the state's Contract for Excellence requirements. Some, including Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters, were less than thrilled with the announcement, the Times reports, calling Klein's planned class size reductions "so minimal as to be meaningless."

July 11 update: For criticism of Klein's plan, check out NYC Educator's post on the topic.

Principal pinball gives lousy leaders new schools

Posted by Philissa at 8:27 AM

At Insideschools, we pay careful attention when a school gets a new principal. So when Jolanta Rohloff, the controversial principal of Brooklyn's Lafayette High School, resigned in March, we took notes -- especially because we had been following her exploits, which included unfairly reducing students' grades and issuing many "unsatisfactory" ratings to teachers, pretty closely. Now, Rohloff has resurfaced in news that reveals unsettling information about how principals are assigned to schools.

Last week, the Post reported that Rohloff was one of two candidates for the principal at Manhattan Center for Math and Science. Earlier this week, Manhattan Center parents told the Daily News they felt "hoodwinked" because they had received no information about Rohloff and her terrible track record before interviewing her. Yesterday came the news, also in the Daily News, that Rohloff had removed herself from contention for that job and instead will work to develop a new high school that will open in 2008 -- where she will be principal.

The Daily News also reported recently that Rohloff is receiving the maximum bonus for Lafayette's performance, even though she left the school before the year ended and the DOE considers the school so weak that it is being phased out. (In general, the list of schools where principals are receiving bonuses doesn't seem, at first glance, to correspond to what Insideschools knows about the schools' quality.)

Here are a few questions I'd love to have answered: Why are some principals censured and even removed for grading improprieties and others are not? Why are principals who have proven themselves divisive and even unfit allowed (or in this case, it seems, encouraged) to continue to lead schools? And what checks are in place at the DOE to make sure the results of data-crunching on principal performance and other matters actually make sense?

Does more state money really mean more accountability?

Posted by Unknown at 3:39 PM

Elizabeth Green at the New York Sun reports today about the City's use of the upcoming dramatic increase in state education funding, which are supposed to be used in accordance with Governor Spitzer's "Contract for Excellence" initiative. (For more on the Campaign for Fiscal Equity's lawsuit behind the increase and the details of the Contract for Excellence, see Green's article or the recent Insideschools piece on the parent letter to the Board of Regents.)

The city will see an increase of about $700 million for the 2007-2008 school year, and, in principle, this money must be spent on one of the five priorities outlined in Spitzer's Contract for Excellence, including reducing class size, providing after-school programs, and lengthening the school year. However, there are a number of loopholes that allow the money to be used for other purposes, such as charter schools and "experimental programs."

Green writes:

The state had reported in April that $317 million of the new funds would be governed by Mr. Spitzer's accountability plan, called the Contract for Excellence. But new numbers released Thursday will likely leave just $228 million to be governed by the contract's restrictions, a city spokeswoman, Debra Wexler, said.

Some are disappointed with this change, including Michael Rebell, one of the attorneys who brought the Campaign for Fiscal Equity lawsuit, Green reports.

For an alternative view, check out the dissent by Joe Williams on the Dems for Ed Reform blog.

'Overly aggressive' police in classroom

Posted by Unknown at 11:55 AM

In a New York Times column (subscription required) today, Bob Herbert writes about a case of police harassment in the classroom-- one incident on a long list compiled by the New York Civil Liberties Union in its report "Criminalizing the Classroom: The Over-Policing of New York City Schools."

According to Herbert's column, Principal Michael Soguero of Bronx Guild High School was suspended in 2005 after being arrested in front of a classroom full of students by Officer Juan Gonzalez. His crime? Defending a 16-year-old girl who had cursed within earshot of a police officer on her way to class. When the officer attempted to arrest the student, Principal Soguero intervened. Charges were later dropped, and Soguero has since moved to Colorado. Although Police Department and the district attorney initially supported Officer Gonzalez, Herbert writes that he has since learned Gonzalez is "indeed a problem officer," and that his gun and badge have since been confiscated.

Commentary on the cash-for-kids plan

Posted by Philissa at 10:41 AM

Since the DOE announced last month its plan to pay some students for their performance on tests, the education world has been abuzz with commentary on the program. Here's a roundup of the dialogue.

Today in the Times, Barry Schwartz, a psychology professor at Swarthmore College, says decades of psychology research suggest the plan could backfire. He writes:

Assumptions that economists make about human motivation, though intuitive and straightforward, are false. In particular, the idea that adding motives always helps is false. There are circumstances in which adding an incentive competes with other motives and diminishes their impact. Psychologists have known this for more than 30 years.

Less demurely, historian Diane Ravitch lambasted the plan in the Huffington Post shortly after it was announced, calling it "anti-democratic, anti-civic, anti-intellectual, and anti-social."

The plan to pay kids has also found a host of defenders. In the comments on Ravitch's piece, for example, one person wrote: "I think I know a lot more about poor people and kids than you do and you are WRONG. This plan sends exactly the right message: good grades are valuable."

And the Staten Island Advance took a look at a similar program in a small town in Ohio and reported that school officials there had seen some signs of success. Those officials also told the Advance that the program had been well received because they had consulted with community members for months before launching the program.