Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Klein Defends Class Size Reduction Plans

by Norman Scott
special to The Wave for the July 20th edition
July 18, 2007

Facing severe criticism over his plan to spend the money coming to the NYCDOE from the CFE lawsuit, Chancellor Joel Klein has mounted a rigorous defense. Detailed presentations were made at the monthly Panel for Educational Policy meeting on July 16 on the much criticized plans to reduce class size but did not prevent Manhattan’s Panel member Patrick Sullivan from voting against the plan or Queens’ Panel member Michael Flowers from abstaining. The other members of the Panel approved the plan.

Klein followed up at a sparsely attended press roundtable held the next day. He went into some detail on a controversial aspect in his class size reduction plan: to create 400 collaborative/team teaching classrooms that will consist of a 60/40 % split of regular ed students and special ed students, with two teachers in the room specializing in each of these models. Klein forcefully made the point that the two-teacher model will certainly mean a class size reduction for the regular ed children.

Due to low attendance from the major dailies, this reporter had an opportunity to engage in a give and take with the chancellor on this issue. Will there be a para included, as there are currently paras in many special ed classes? “Only if the IEP of a student calls for it,” said Klein. These paras are known as management paras directed at a particular child and not as general paras in the classroom. For some special ed students used to two adults in the classroom, this plan may not result in an improved ratio. Klein said that this collaborative model has worked very well in some schools, but did not give any specifics. Some Long Island districts have instituted a similar model to some success but an aide or para is often added to the mix.

“Did he expect some parents of the non-special ed students to complain about their children being placed with special ed students,” I asked? “Hey, this is New York, what would you expect,” he responded? I followed up with a question about class size caps. “Around 25,” he said. Another reporter raised the point that this sounds more like a great model for mainstreaming, not necessarily reducing class size. Klein said that in a class of 25, for both the 15 non-special ed and the 10 special ed students, this would be such a reduction.

I raised the point that all groups, the union, parent groups and the DOE seem to agree on one point: increasing the number of schools will be necessary to accomplish serious class size reduction. If he feels this collaborative model of two teachers in a room can be successful, why not try it across the board in schools that are deemed to be failing by inundating the school with extra teachers instead of just closing them down? He responded that each school has to be looked at individually.

Throughout the press conference and at the PEP meeting, Klein time and again reiterated the point that just about every decision, from instruction to major policy initiatives, is data driven. The accumulation and analysis of data has been the heart of the extensive restructuring of the system, but critics have claimed that the data has been focused to support the Chancellor’s programs.

At the PEP meeting, panel member Richard Menschel, a Bloomberg appointee, asked Klein if there have been any studies on the impact class size has on instruction. Klein responded the studies have been mixed and emphasized that teacher quality was the prime factor in effective instruction, not class size. As part of a two minute presentation the public is allowed, I was able to respond that all one had to do was look at the class sizes in Long Island and Scarsdale and at the exclusive private schools where parents pay $30,000 a year, basically for lower class sizes.

At the press conference, I was able to bring up a question on Klein’s emphasis on teacher quality. Since he was so data driven, where is the data that points to what makes an effective teacher, especially since he wants to pay teachers based on merit? Or is it just a case of “you know one when you see one?” I pointed to informal exit polls I had taken from teachers leaving the system and with private school teachers who choose to work for less pay rather than work in public schools. They point to 3 factors: high class size, the overemphasis on testing and the inability to control what happens in their classrooms. Are the conditions in the schools preventing the ability to attract quality, experienced teachers?

He responded in some detail, pointing to schools that have hundreds of applicants for every open position, while other schools have a great deal of trouble recruiting teachers. Teachers want to work where they are respected, where there are good conditions and where they are paid based on the effort they put in. “An effective teacher is one that gives the children a full year’s worth of instruction,” he concluded.

Comment: I covered the July 17 press conference for The Wave and tried to write this piece as an impartial reporter rather than an opinion piece. Klein responses to the questions were not glib with the usual PR tilt but I felt in a thoughtful manner. At the end he sort of threw up his hands with an attitude of "Norm, you just don't get it." Maybe I don't. But I liked that. He actually seems to believe in the stuff he is doing, which I can accept. A true believer with a moral streak and some disdain for people who just can't see where he is going. The problem is, he is the one who just doesn't get it.

19 comments:

David Ballela said...

Sometimes you wonder what goes through the minds of people like Klein and Bloomberg. For those of us who feel that they are destroying public education in New York, do we believe that they are agents for the capitalist conspiracy to destroy unions and privatize for the benefit of their business cronies? Are they throwbacks to the likes of the robber barons of Morgan and Gould who had such disdain for working people?
Like you, Norm, I've seen and heard Klein up close and he just doesn't fit that bill. I think a lot of it is that their inflated egos prevent them from seeing the possibility that they are wrong and the political system and media (except for the "wave" and the blogosphere) doesn't provide any check on those egos. If only they would walk into schools, unannouced, and without the entourage, to see and talk to teachers and kids.

ed notes online said...

David
I do no think it is a question of just getting them to talk to teachers or students. I really think Klein does some of that and people do tell him what he wants to hear and when he hears what he doesn't like he dismisses it. It is his world view that's operating here. He really seems to believe, as does Cerf and many others that with the same money spent if just people did the job there would be miracles.

They suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of teaching highly at-risk students. I hate to feel like one of those nay-sayers since I always felt like a reformer and after seeing so much waste and incompetence over the years it was so clear the system needed massive reform. And in some of the stuff they did, some of us even saw some merit. But behind it all is the teacher is at fault mentality and I honestly have always thought most people genuinely wanted to succeed though I saw some people get away with stuff that makes your skin crawl. But they threw out the baby with the bath water. There are no easy answers. When BloomKlein are gone and the UFT tries to get its paws back into the system I do not have much hope that there will be a more positive reform movement.

Anonymous said...

Norm,

I think you are right - Klein does believe that what he is doing is right. I hear that from principals - he speaks with passion and conviction. However, that doesn’t make him right. Perspiration doesn't always work!

The inclusion/collaborative teaching model -(CCT classes) are not new at all. Some schools have a few on each grade. It seems he might be increasing them. They began when I worked at the district office - I think in '91. At that time, special ed. supervisors met with parents to tell them about this innovation. Some parents objected believing that their children would be held back because instruction would diluted be for the special ed. kids. The benefit some saw was that the class size was reduced to 25. At that time in our district class size was much higher in the schools where this was instituted. Parents may have been given the option - my memory falls short on that. But I remember talking to the special ed. supervisor at the time, and it was not too much of a hard sell. However, I do remember some letters to the editor complaining about this and the fact that the regular ed. kids would be held back.

Then again in the mid or late 90's they developed this model called the continuum of instruction for special ed. It was meant to move kids along the continuum of instruction to mainstreaming - from restrictive to less restrictive. School report cards do report the movement out of special ed. The CCT was the step before regular ed.

Now --- does it work? First, we shouldn't just be throwing kids in the CCT classes to reduce class size - this should be on their IEP and they should be ready and truly fall into that model on the "continuum.”

I have been in classes where you cannot tell the difference between special ed. and general ed. kids. It is beautiful. In one class, the teachers have real flexible grouping - both are teaching the same math concept - on different levels and using different strategies - the groups are not necessarily divided by sp/ed and gen/ed., but by skill level. If a kid is struggling, the teacher asks the child to join the other group, and if the kid is ready, is moved to the higher functioning group - within the lesson. Kids are getting immediate help, no frustration, no stigma attached - the moves are as smooth as the best of ballroom dancers.

This requires an awful lot of planning and coordination - and teachers who are completely in tune with each other. It requires training in the model. Unfortunately teachers are not given the time to do that and it then depends on teachers giving up a lot of before and after school as well as weekend time. Not all teachers have the luxury of doing that.

I have also been in classes where the teachers hardly speak to each other. Management style, educational philosophy are in constant conflict. One may be more punitive, the other not. One may be a believer in a very strict and formal basic education, the other not. As teachers, we value and believe that our methods and style will help kids - if we are deprived of that - we might as well not teach. I have been in classes where the teachers barely speak to each other.

Often, a new teacher is put in with a more experienced teacher. The experienced sees the classroom as his/her own and the new teacher as a para - and each takes that role. The new teacher, is at first pleased that he/she doesn't have to worry about management (because they see all the other new teachers struggling with management) - but when feeling some confidence, is resentful not to be able to put their mark on the class - or even worse, operating outside of their conscience. The kids pick up on their assigned roles and don't treat the new as a teacher. When the experienced one is out, the kids react to the other as a sub.

Unfortunately, I think that the two later situations are more common. But not that it has to be. Teachers are thrown together because of convenience and left to sink or swim - taking kids with them. Success is built on teacher selection, willingness, training, and most importantly, time to communicate.

There are abuses as well. When a teacher is out - no sub is called or one is not available. When another class is uncovered due to absence, a teacher is pulled - and always the newer one. This situation is often the result of schools not able to get subs, not necessarily a choice. But with principals now in control of their budgets, and so many demands on their budget - it just may become a budget saving measure.

ed notes online said...

I did raise the issue of putting an experienced teacher in with a new teacher with Klein and also the problems with team teaching and his response made me feel stupid for even bringing it up. He (rightly) pointed to the fact that these decisions are totally to be made at the school level, though I followed up by bringing up the idea that some very serious thought should eb given to the "match." He pointed to the fact that this would be a special ed and reg. ed teacher, which would make it difficult to match. Somehow, people will have to suck it up and figure out a way to make it work.

I have a cousin teaching 6th grade in Long Island in this situation -- she's reg ed and her partner is spec. ed. A few years ago she was absolutely thrilled and said her spec. ed partner was incredible. Last year she had a new partner and it wasn't working out as well. I so think they had a para which I believe is a great investment in this model.

As to Klein's passion for what he is doing, I respect that passion even if so wrong-headed. At this press conference it was the first time he did not seem to posture for the press (because there was not much real press there.) He could have cut this conference short but tried to answer everything I put in front of him. I got the feeling that debating ed issues with him might be interesting. I never had that feeling before.

Anonymous said...

I was involved in CTT classes last year in my high school. I teach double period math classes to ninth graders. My periods three and four classes were CTT classes with Ms. X, a NYC teacher fellow with great ideas but no classroom management skills. She was also taking two graduate classes after the school day. We did not have a common preparation period (and she also taught a CTT class with another teacher as well) so we tried to do some planning on the phone on weekends. The only model available was the teacher/para model. We just had no time to plan together and this teacher was also not that familiar with the math curriculum. She was absent frequently, as well (over 15 times) and the subs who came in basically did nothing...how could they? My class had 34 students--21 mainstream and 13 special ed students.

My period 6 and 7 class was with a more experienced special ed teacher who is known for her difficult personality. We had a common period (but it was her lunch period) and we rarely would meet. This teacher was normally a resource room teacher and hated the collaborative teaching process. The students knew there was tension between us and the students were glad when she was absent (or also pulled out to do IEP's). This teacher also was frequently late for class (You are there, so what difference does it make?) and also walked out almost daily for a bathroom break....what a disaster!! I dreaded working with her and being that she was so friendly with the special ed AP and a few other administrators, there was nobody to complain to.

There was never a forum to help us and all it did was look good on paper.

If the DOE really wants to have a CTT model, they need to give each teacher an assigned period of common planning and take away a class (a comp time position!)

If they are really committed to this, then they need to do things less haphazardly.

Again, on paper my classes look great. But in reality, neither model served the kids well. And giving a teacher two different teachers to work with is very unfair (and was very common in my school!)

ed notes online said...

This is an excellent snapshot of reality vs. theory. Klein sort of pooh-pooed the "teachers getting along" point but without a careful meshing it can be a disaster. If teachers have some input into who they can work with it might make a difference, but who can expect that in today's top-down world?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand this sudden emphasis on "teacher quality" after the past four or so years of micromanaging teachers in the classroom. Is this a sudden realization that the previous approach didn't work? Or is it an effort to shift the blame for wahtever goes wrong onto the teachers?

ed notes online said...

Not so sudden. That has been the mantra of the Eli Broads, KIPP, BloomKlein and our esteemed UFT leader -- the single most important factor is teacher quality -- not class size, not the poverty/home life of students. Quality teaching can overcome all. Like if we have wuality policemen there will be no crime. Or quality doctors - no sickness.

They claim research shows this but I don't see where the research is cited.

It allows the right to attack unions and union rules as being the problem -- they protect bad teachers.

With all the emphasis on prof dev. and supposedly going after teachers I would be anyhting the quality of the teaching staff is no better today than when BloomKlein came in and possibly it's worse.

Anonymous said...

At my school the teachers have been doing this kind of so-called collaborative teaching off and on for year and years. While it sounds good, it rarely works. Mainly for the kinds of reasons mentioned in the 8:15 AM, July 19, 2007 Anonymous post.

I'd love to see the data that drove yet another lousy decision. If real studies where in fact done, I am sure they the data and conclusions where decidedly mixed.

So, as anyone with a bit of common sense, a few years in the classrom knows, this latest idea is doomed to fail and rather quickly, too.

But, hey, that's OK.... It'll serve it's purpose. Which as we all know isn't not really about serving the students. It' not about helping teachers teach the students. It's about the egos of Bloomberg and Klein. Reorganization after reoganization, they still think this is about what they think and about what they want to do. It's no big secret that nothing will work during their tenure. They just don't understand the education of children. By now we should be convinced that they are incapable of learning anything useful about education.

Anyway.... We are learning how to play thier game tirelessly by now. We embrace it! Team teaching Whoopie! Special Education kids and near honors kids togther in the same classroom. What a great idea! Kids let your parents know.

We are all ready for the Next Big Reoganization. That will be, what, Version 4? How many will they do before it is time to bid a good ridance tp Bloomberg and Klein?

I can't wait for September,opps, I mean August PD where we will all learn how to implement this. NOT!


Signed,

Still an S rated teacher teacher, but who know about next year
;-)

Anonymous said...

I doubt that Kleins motive in adding 400 Collaborative Team Teaching classes is to reduce class size. This model has been around for many years. After a full evaluation, IEP Teams (formely known as SBST's) make this recommendation when it is deemed to be the most appropriate program for a child. Where are these 4800 new sp ed students going to come from to fill these new classes?? (12 sp ed students per class X 4oo classes) Will they be pulled out of the self-contained classes, many that have paras, which are more expensive, Or will newly evalauted kids be recommended for CTT rather than self-contained classes? Will pressure be put on the IEP Teams in the schools to do just this so that Klein can say that he has lowered class size?

Anonymous said...

The CTT model does not work period. In fact many special needs students are offended by placement in such settings where often times they have a one-to-one para with them. Also, the pace of such classes are reduced to offer the time needed for specisl needs students to complete the work. The result, the mainstream student often tunes out. This is a strategy by the DOE to give the appearance of utlizing the CFE money in a constructive way while also addressing class size. In fact, it is a failing strategy as most classes that have incorporated this model have proven. Just ask the teacher, of course that will never happen so the beat goes on. However we now know where many of the ATR folks might end up. Whats next?? The CTT model including technology within the workshop model and more and more PD.

David Ballela said...

I take back what I said and resort to conspiracy theory. Being semi-retired and out of the loop and reading of these plans with CTT classes it's obvious that this will supply another nail in the coffin and as the previous writer said it is a solution for ATR's. It will make them retire or quit faster. Yes, when inclusion classes work it can bring tears to your eyes-but they rarely do. Dealing with special ed can make or break schools. The CTT plan will also drive more middle class families towards private and parochial schools.

Anonymous said...

I taught CTT Kindergarten. I was the Gen Ed and got a first year Sp ED as a partner. My experience is the same as most here by June I was happy to get divorced. We barely talked, when we did it was bickering.

Unitymustgo!

ed notes online said...

Leonie Haimson at one point compared the Tweed way of doing things to throwing a deck of cards in the air and seeing how it lands.

Being out of the schools and out of touch on some of these issues, I wish I had some of the information in these comments. It is clear that "data man" Klein who constantly talks about how data drives everything, has no real data to show about this model other than saying it works in some schools. But as current and former teachers familiar with the model point out, the devil is in the details and the people at Tweed are so far away from the details, using the usual excuse - let the schools do it. Theory imposed from the top.
One of the driving points is that teachers should play a major role in the implementation and we can be sure they will have no say.

Another case of throwing the cards in the air.

Anonymous said...

Following the para model? Although teachers and paras are suppose to have a planning period once a week,
paras do NOT get a prep period. Paras are suppose to stay with the children when they are with a cluster. And in pre-k (at least the all day program) they do NOT have the same lunch period.

In my school the 2 teachers in the CTT class do have common preps, but then there is no special ed teacher
to be with the class during those prep periods.

Anonymous said...

The CTT classroom is a feeding ground for untoward incidents. Parents of regular education students are kept in the dark as to the composition of these classes. They are awakened when there occurs the inevitable problem between a special education and regular education student. Then they are further victimized when the special education student receives little or no penalty for the infraction while the regulaer education students often times faces a more severe penalty (suspension). What is most interesting is that the Chancellor's Discipline Code does not differentiate between the two categories of students. However, the DOE hearing officers make up their own rules, following the students IEP which often times allows for deviant behavior as a result of the sp ed students disability. How's that for fairness. Yet, the mainstream teacher given tons of PD is never informed of their right to view the IEP or for that matter, have knowledge of the students handicap. The CTT model initiated indiscriminately will lead to further discipline problems which will force administrators to bury the incident and of course dump blame on guess who? The unsuspecting teacher's (ATR)??

Anonymous said...

Norm,

Love Leonie's comment about how Joel and his friends making decisions by tossing cards up in the air! It would suggest a random method of decision making. However, I disagree. Probability would suggest that not every decision made at random would be as wrong as Joel's are. Can the children of our town really be that unlucky? No, each decision reflect his and Bloomberg's pathetic, tyrannical world view.


However Leonie's comment is inspiring. As the expert journalist at the NYC DOE conferences it might be fun to start requesting more details about Joel's decision making process. Consider asking questions like "Which specific studies did he use to make this decision? " and "Who is/are the advisor(s) regarding this specific decision and what is their level of experience and level of expertise?"

Any specific study is not going to have the black and whire results Joel has been seeming to claim for the sake of the dumb and / or lazy and / or biased reporters.

Now if Joel, in imitation of Little Lord Bloomberg, starts to get pissed by your ever more probing questions, then you know he's lying about about his data driven decision making process. Likewise if he provides false studies, or promises to get back to you and never does.

Just think of the impilications of this.

Plus, you have the added benefit of teaching again: in this case educating the new NY Times education journalist and may a few of the reporters who, aspiring to become journalists, are willing to learn. ;-)

Anonymous said...

CTT stands for Crucify The Teacher. Bet that will be the mantra for anyone who challenges this latest edict from BloomKlein...

Anonymous said...

I also remember the new continuum back in 1990 or so. Our district was one of the pilots. I was the Pres of Presidents Council at that time and was included in much of the planning stage which I was able to share with my member schools. In the schools that piloted it, the teachers were allowed to apply for the class as a team. Parents of both Regular Ed and Special Ed kids were given a choice as to whether they wanted to participate. And the Special Ed kids were chosen based on their IEP's and the highest chance of success. At that time we started with the early grades and the classes included two teachers and a para. We had gifted, regular ed and special ed kids in the class and if you watched you couldn't tell which was the sped ed and which the reg ed teacher.

It worked out beautifully at the start. I didn't follow it closely in the later years, but it has lost its umph over the years because of budget cuts, losing the para. Teachers being placed together randomly, etc. But at last we in the system have some experience and learned from the experts. What can Klein say?

From NYC Education News Listserve