UPDATE at July 14, 5 PM: The Judge ruled that the Temporary Restraining Order would continue so that Success Academy is barred from renovating the spaces in Waterside and Sheepshead Bay until he rules on the application for preliminary injunctions in both lawsuits, which he intends to do as soon as possible.... The DOE immediately argued that these cases should be dismissed, based on their view that the issue should have gone to the Commissioner first instead of to Court, and if not, they should be granted another 45 days to research and argue the other claims made in the lawsuit.
The Judge seemed surprised, but seemed to ignore that request, and immediately dove into the more substantive questions: namely, whether the Educational Impact Statements should have mentioned the potential impact of these proposals on class size, and more specifically, whether DOE should have analyzed how the loss of rooms at the existing schools might prevent them from lowering class size, especially considering the new class size law passed last spring by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor this fall.
The city's defense seemed to be primarily based on two narrow issues: that the state law that requires EIS's does not explicitly mention class size, and again, that any legal challenge should have been filed with the Commissioner first, as matters such as class size are so complex that they require education expertise. ....Leonie Haimson: https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2023/07/hearings-today-on-lawsuits-o-block.html
There was no UFT presence in court other then a lawyer from Stroock, the UFT law firm. The other lawyer, Laura Barbieri from Advocates for Justice, has worked with Leonie for years. So clearly the UFT is involved but they are trying to stay low-key. No attempt to engage the members in showing resistance, like having people outside. UFT leaders fight a tepid battle against charters, other than a very few. Very, very, very few. Compare to the big crowd of mostly retirees rallying across the street from the courthouse on July 6 to greet the emerging Marianne Pizzitola and the team of lawyers the day before they won a temporary restraining order on the Medicare issue. The lawyers made the poing that showing up influences the court. Mulgrew is no Marianne.
Retirees rally, July 6
An astute observer stated to me recently about UFT lack of response to attacks from the right on their charter policy -
Makes little sense since the NYP & WSJ will blast them anyway, so why not try to get more objective press there?My response is - what actually makes sense about the UFT/Unity semi-brain trust nowadays? They try to slide instead of proudly owning an anti-charter policy. In essence, they leave the field open to right wing propaganda. But I imagine a response from them would be to show how they don't really oppose charters instead of SCREW 'EM.
Monday, July 17, 2023
I posted the press release Leonie sent out Friday morning: Block co-location of 2 Success Academy charter schools - July 14 - 2 lawsuits, challenging DOE co-location and re-location proposals - With our Favorite Judge
A teacher at the Sheepshead Bay HS Campus, which is deeply affected by the co-loco issue, asked me who was behind the court case opposing charter co-locos and, of course, Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters had a strong hand in it. Not much sign of UFT involvement - except for the clue that one of the lawyers was from Stroock, the law firm used by the UFT (and where Randi came from).
As a school building under threat from an Eva invasion, why weren't the teachers in the affected schools mobilized or even notified? Because the UFT tries to fight charter from under the covers for fear of being accused of being anti-charter by the right wing and even the liberal media. Duhhhhh! They'd attack the UFT even if they did nothing. I have links to the Rupert Murdoch press attacks below.
The UFT and charter schools has an ugly history, going back to the Al Shanker creation of the very idea of charters. I myself saw the charter option as attractive in the late 90s as a teacher empowerment tool to get out from under DOE bureaucracy and dictatorship supervisors - I even urged Randi to provide UFT support for members who wanted to start a charter school - naturally they would be a UFT school - and if she listened to me the landscape might not look the same. Teachers would choose the supervisors - a revolutionary concept but one that has been used in Europe and elsewhere.
What happens when teachers run the school
I've always maintained that a teaching staff should chose the principal, not the DOE.
But Randi had a different idea - have the UFT itself open charters - which they did and they did not do very well --- the UFT is just another bureaucracy, after all. My plan would have teachers, not the union or a corporate entity, running schools. Randi put me on a committee to plan a charter school with CCNY but that fell through. Then I realized -- the UFT leadership is as afraid of empowering teachers as the DOE and the corporate world is. Once I was clued in that teacher power was a dream, I turned against charters.
Now, the UFT does oppose charters in some ways but weakly. They support charters if they meet certain conditions.
Support for charters is a fundamental contradiction to support for public schools.
The UFT does not focus an attack on the idea of charters as a drain on public funds and the creation of a dual system that ultimately harms all students. Or call for the conversion of charters back to public schools.
The UFT does openly fight lifting the cap on NYC charters, so some credit there. Note this headline from Jan. 2023: He took a position on NY State charter authorizing bodies.
NY teachers union wants changes to charter schools:https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2023/01/30/united-federation-of-teachers-wants-changes-to-ny-charter-schools
Yeah, I want changes. I want the ed scam of the century - think Bit-Coins - gone.
They call for transparency and push back - at times - on co-locations. But their history of opening charter schools and occupying space in public schools is not a good look - in fact they co-located a charter that ultimately failed in my old Gershwin JHS 166 in East NY and that led to it's ultimate closing.
And they do back unionized charters, even when they take space in public schools. This is a quandary - for me too, as I oppose the very idea of charters but also want to see the teachers unionized and of course if the UFT took an open anti-charter position, they wouldn't get very far in organizing them.
But wait: The UFT has been fundamentally unsuccessful on the whole in organizing charters. Why aren't there hordes or organizers flooding Success Academy Charter schools with organizing lit? I'd bet you could sign up hundreds of NYC teachers to do that. And since Eva schools are co-located you already have UFTers in the building.
The UFT has a charter school organizing office - and lists union charters here.
To be fair, Mulgrew has put out some anti-charter positions --Feb. 2020
Michael Mulgrew: The “Inconvenient Truth” Behind “Successful” Charter Schools
Note he stole the title of our anti-charter movie. Probably some of the content too.
No officials from the UFT in court on Friday? - You think they are allergic to judge Lyle Frank?
One would think the UFT would be out there on the front lines, organizing people. But they quiver at fear of Eva and the NY Post and Wall St. Journal attacks with headlines like:
- The UFT’s cynical war on charters
- The Teachers Union Chokepoint Against Charter Schools
- NYC charter school parents rap teachers’ union for blocking space deal
if you have the stomach to read them I posted all 3 on Norms Notes: Murdoch Cynical Right wing Media War on UFT position on Charters
Were there public school parents that rap charter school expansion in their schools in the court Friday? You bet, but you won't hear about them in the Murdoch press.
The UFT response to these attacks? I haven't seen one.
But Leonie did respond to the attacks:
Oh, and BTW - note the connection of the Eva Moskowitz lawyer to the Jeffrey Epstein story and the despicable Campbell Brown.
What happened to that 2014 tenure law suit?
Arthur has a few good points on UFT leadership in his Substack post.
Real Union Leadership
Compare Fran Drescher to Michael Mulgrew and his army of Unity hacks.
For a factual account of lawsuit & yesterday’s arguments in court see Leonie's account. nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2023/07/hearing
https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2023/07/hearings-today-on-lawsuits-o-block.html
Friday, July 14, 2023
Hearings today on co-locations and the eviction of West Side HS focused on class size
UPDATE at 5 PM: The Judge ruled that the Temporary Restraining Order would continue so that Success Academy is barred from renovating the spaces in Waterside and Sheepshead Bay until he rules on the application for preliminary injunctions in both lawsuits, which he intends to do as soon as possible.
This morning at 10:30 AM, at the NY Supreme Court building at 80 Centre St., Judge Lyle Frank heard arguments in the lawsuit to block the co-location of two Success Academy charter schools in the Waterside Leadership Academy building in Queens and the Sheepshead Bay high school complex in Brooklyn. He also heard arguments in the lawsuit to block the re-location and co-location of three transfer schools, designed for under-credited and over-aged students: the forced eviction of the Edward A Reynolds West Side High School in Manhattan to a building across town to make way for The Young Women's Leadership Academy, and the co-location of Aspirations Diploma Plus High School with Brownsville Academy in Brooklyn. (For more on these lawsuits, see here and here.)
The small courtroom was chock full of attorneys, plaintiffs, observers, a couple of reporters, and four very young Success Academy children wearing their bright orange uniforms, sitting and sometimes squirming in the first and second rows. They were clearly put there to try to affect the outcome of the case. Unfortunately, it was very difficult to hear much of what was said because there were two air conditioners humming loudly, and the attorneys were speaking with their backs to us, facing the judge. We will hopefully get a transcript soon but until then, please take this account of what transpired with some large grains of salt.
Judge Lyle Frank was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2018. He is relatively young, and not afraid to make waves by ruling against the the City and the DOE in some prominent instances, when he believes that they have not been following the letter of the law. Last summer, he ruled that the budget cuts to schools should be restored because they had been illegally imposed by the city. Though later on appeal, the Appellate Court let the cuts stand, they agreed the DOE had acted illegally. More recently, he issued a preliminary injunction against the City's plan to change the healthcare of NYC retirees to a Medicare Advantage plan.
This morning, he jauntily walked into the courtroom, slipped on his robe, seemed pleased that the room was full of observers, and made a joke by asking if there were "any retirees" among them. Then he launched right into closely questioning the four attorneys for the city, and the two lawyers who represented the parents and teachers who oppose these moves, Dina Kolker of Stroock and Laura Barbieri of Advocates for Justice.
The DOE immediately argued that these cases should be dismissed, based on their view that the issue should have gone to the Commissioner first instead of to Court, and if not, they should be granted another 45 days to research and argue the other claims made in the lawsuit.
The Judge seemed surprised, but seemed to ignore that request, and immediately dove into the more substantive questions: namely, whether the Educational Impact Statements should have mentioned the potential impact of these proposals on class size, and more specifically, whether DOE should have analyzed how the loss of rooms at the existing schools might prevent them from lowering class size, especially considering the new class size law passed last spring by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor this fall.
The city's defense seemed to be primarily based on two narrow issues: that the state law that requires EIS's does not explicitly mention class size, and again, that any legal challenge should have been filed with the Commissioner first, as matters such as class size are so complex that they require education expertise.
In response, Dina Kolker pointed out that the state law that mandates the creation of Education Impact Statements cites enrollment among many factors that should be examined, but also specifically says that the list is not exhaustive, and that the "statement shall include, but not be limited to" these factors. Clearly, changes in class size have a serious educational impact on students and thus should be addressed in the EIS, especially given the new state law. She also cited precedents in which the court had blocked changes in school utilization based upon legally deficient EISs, without the issue going to the Commissioner first, most notably, in the decision by Judge Lobis in 2010 to halt the closure of nineteen schools.
Later in the hearings, the city attorneys suggested that since the EISs did mention changes in enrollment, that was practically the same as class size, (which of course isn't true). They also proposed that since the DOE is currently in compliance with the new class size law (which actually doesn't kick in until next fall), what happens to class size if these co-locations occur is not relevant at this point.
They added that DOE will comply with the class size law in the future, and the Judge replied, "but how, if they [the schools] need more classrooms and the charter school takes up all the space?" At that point, the city reiterated that this is a complex question that only the Commissioner was qualified to decide.
In general, Judge Frank seemed to respond to the city's arguments with skepticism. Yet the decision on whether to continue a temporary restraining order in the case of the Success Academy and/or order a preliminary injunction in both cases depends on three different assessments by the Court: one, the likelihood of the lawsuit's eventual success when it is considered in full; two, whether the harm by letting renovations go forward is irreversible; and three, the balance of equities between the opposing parties.
As to the latter two issues, the city argued that the Success charter schools are due to start school in mid-August so the renovations must start soon, that any renovations could be undone, and that "children are more important than buildings." Dina Kolker countered that renovations are expensive to reverse, that the construction could disturb many of the activities, including summer school, currently taking place at the Sheepshead Bay complex, and that the fate of children are involved in both sets of schools, not just the charters.
Then there were arguments from both sides on the secondary issue as to whether Advocates for Justice should have legal standing to be a petitioner in this case. DOE said no, Laura maintained that they should, since they are a non-profit that is expending resources and time on advocating for student rights.
She then argued that the fact that several of the PEP members had their cameras turned off during the vote on these transfer school moves was a clear violation of Open Meetings Law, since it is impossible to ensure that the right person was voting; the videotape for a large section of the PEP meeting is also missing. The city responded that these were mere "technical violations" that shouldn't nullify the votes.
Laura went on to say that the EISs were also deficient since they included no discussion of where students at the transfer schools with special needs would receive their mandated services, and that depriving of them of these dedicated rooms is a violation of the city's Human Rights Law. In addition, the EIS contained no analysis or discussion of the loss of the LYFE center and how that would affect the students at West Side High school who are young parents.
See the affidavit of Jacqueline Shannon, Early Childhood Department Chair at Brooklyn College. on how critical the LYFE center is in keeping these students engaged and attending school. The LYFE center is a day care center which was established to care for the infants and toddlers of West Side students while they are in school, with much research and experience showing their value. What's fascinating is that Judge Lobis in her 2010 decision that ruled the 19 school closures illegal explicitly mentioned the fact that there was no discussion of how the loss of LYFE centers would impact students, just as in this case:
The EISs completely failed to provide information about specific programs existing at the schools proposed to be closed or phased out, or where the students would be able to find such programs. For example, where the school had a Living For The Young Family Through Education (LYFE) Center, no mention was made of that program, or where a similar program existed in other city schools.
The attorneys for the city responded that the West Side high school EIS contained such a discussion, which is false -- in fact, the document as you can see for yourself, never even defines what a LYFE center is, no less describes the likely impact of its loss.
The city's attorneys also claimed that EISs do not have to specify which rooms will be used to deliver special education services; but as Laura responded, they should at least analyze whether there will be enough rooms for that purpose, once these proposed co-locations and re-locations take place.
To sum up, the arguments on both sides were interesting and we should hear soon on the issues of the TRO and preliminary injunction, and hopefully, even on the broader questions of whether these moves should occur at all.
One thing I predict, however, is that after today, future EISs will at least mention the issue of class size and at least superficially pretend to discuss the ability of affected schools to comply with the new class size law, no matter the outcome of these particular cases.
Brownsville Academy, class size, Dina Kolker, educational impact statements, Jacqueline, Laura Barbieri, Lawsuit hearings, proposed co-locations, Success Academy, Waterside School for Leadership
When politicians are removed from controlling education
ReplyDeleteand when teachers run their own schools, public education in the United States
will recover slowly from the stunning destruction resulting from
political control. Political control is elitist and has a harmful effect
on people of color.