Like
McDonalds, SACS simply assumes that they can open their franchise and
sling their burgers anywhere... Liz Rosenberg
...at 6:38 p.m. on Wednesday, January 7th, the Department of
Education sent an e-mail stating: “In light of the fact that the DOE is
not planning to site a school in District 1 tomorrow’s hearing has been
cancelled.” To date, Success Academy has not rescinded its request to
change its application to School District 1. If elected officials do not receive said written notice before the
scheduled press conference, community leaders will hold a forum to allow
parents and community residents an opportunity to provide their
comments.
Nothing surprises us when it comes to the machinations going on around Eva and Success Academy. Was it too itty bitty cold tonight? I'm going to be there and I'm old and cold.
Since SACS [Success Academy Charter Schools] switched locations virtually overnight, it had no language
in its proposal specific to District 1; it failed to make the case that
District 1 has “limited options” or had a “compelling need” for it. Like
McDonalds, SACS simply assumes that they can open their franchise and
sling their burgers anywhere. But of all the districts in the city,
District 1 is even more sure than most that they do not want or need a
Success Academy. ...comment at NYCpublic.org
Below the announcement I've included a great article called:
District 1 Deserves A School That Matches Their Vision (Not Success Academy) by Liz Rosenberg
***MEDIA ADVISORY*** WITH LESS THAN 24 HOURS NOTICE, DOE CANCELS SACS PUBLIC HEARING
MEDIA ADVISORY January 7, 2015
Contact: John Blasco [Councilwoman Rosie Mendez]
212-677-1077,
jblasco@council.nyc.gov
Lisa Donlan [President, CEC1]
212-353-2946,
lisabdonlan@hotmail.com
WITH LESS THAN 24 HOURS NOTICE,
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CANCELS PUBLIC HEARING ON SUCCESS ACADEMY
CHARTER SCHOOL’S APPLICATION FOR A “NON-MATERIAL” CHANGE
With Little To No Notice to Community Residents and Elected Officials, Department of Education Cancels Long Awaited Hearing.Community To Move Forward With Its Own Forum
WHAT: Press
Conference immediately before the scheduled and now cancelled public
hearing on Success Academy Charter Schools’ application for a
“non-material” change to move its charter application from School
District 2 to School District 1.
WHEN: Thursday, January 8th, 5pm
WHERE: In front of P.S. 20, the Anna Silver School (166 Essex Street between East Houston & Stanton Streets)
WHY: Success Academy Charter School was previously
approved by the SUNY Board of Trustees’ Charter School Committee for a
new charter in School District 2, but has since applied for a
“non-material” change to move their charter to School District 1. Under
current SUNY policies, there is no public hearing required before this
“non-material” change, since it takes place within the same borough.
However, following advocacy by Council Members Chin and Mendez, SUNY has
now agreed to take public comments from the School District 1 community
before deciding whether or not to approve Success Academy’s
“non-material” change.
However, at 6:38 p.m. on Wednesday, January 7th, the Department of
Education sent an e-mail stating: “In light of the fact that the DOE is
not planning to site a school in District 1
tomorrow’s hearing has been
cancelled.” To date, Success Academy has not rescinded its request to
change its application to School District 1.
If elected officials do not receive said written notice before the
scheduled press conference, community leaders will hold a forum to allow
parents and community residents an opportunity to provide their
comments.
####
http://www.nycpublic.org/impactory-2/successcomments/my-two-cents-on-sacs-in-district-1/
District 1 Deserves A School That Matches Their Vision (Not Success Academy)
On January 8th the New York City Department of Education will hold a hearing
regarding the Success Academy Charter School slated for District 1 in
Lower Manhattan. The school was approved despite clear community
opposition and despite an eleventh-hour application change that many see
as a violation of the charter proposal process. I will be delivering
the following testimony at that hearing.
It is not news that Success Academy Charter Schools (SACS) is slated
to open 14 new schools in NYC over the next two years, but it is news
that one of those schools will be in New York City’s District 1. At the
last minute, SACS asked the State University of New York (SUNY), one of
two New York state charter authorizers, to change the location of the
school it had originally stipulated for District 2. This might not sound
like a big deal, but in New York charter applications specify that the
applicant demonstrate that “the proposed school is located in a
community with limited options” and that the proposal shows “a
compelling need for the school.”
[1]
Since SACS switched locations virtually overnight, it had no language
in its proposal specific to District 1; it failed to make the case that
District 1 has “limited options” or had a “compelling need” for it. Like
McDonalds, SACS simply assumes that they can open their franchise and
sling their burgers anywhere. But of all the districts in the city,
District 1 is even more sure than most that they do not want or need a
Success Academy.
With anger directed toward the Success network coming from many
places across the city, how can I make such a strong statement about
District 1? Because, unusually, Community Education Council 1 has
invested much time and energy in understanding what type of school
program their community
would like to see.
Last January, District 1’s Community Education Council partnered with
my organization, NYCpublic, to hold a “Community Engagement Lab.” (You
can see the lab in action
here.)
Participants in the Lab, whose stated purpose was to determine what the
community might want in a new school, came from progressive and
traditional schools, from the co-ops and from the public housing
developments and middle-income Mitchell Lama buildings nearby. They
included representatives from central NYCDOE, local teachers and
administrators–and, of course, parents.
By the end of the one-day lab, which consisted of
guest-speaker-hosted “learning sessions” and highly structured
brainstorming exercises, participants had come to consensus around and
developed a set of “building blocks” that should be inherent in any
future district school. These “building blocks” addressed:
- Configuration – Lab consensus was for a pre-K-8th
grade Spanish-English dual language school, with tracks for both general
education and dual language. There would be options for middle school
(6th grade) entry also.
- Community Integration – Lab participants wanted a
school that would be integrated with the community, providing the
community with a sense of ownership. The school would act as a community
hub, sharing its gym (in a neighborhood with precious few), parent
center, and health clinic. It would engage local community-based
organizations for after-school programming and other supports and
partner with local organizations, museums, and institutions to offer
programs in school and via field trips.
- Leadership – The selection of the first
instructional school leader would happen early in the process of
planning, designing, and building the new school to ensure that the
building, instructional curriculum, teachers, and school community
reflect community values. District 1 residents and parents would be part
of selecting the school leader in a participatory and authentic
process.
- Curriculum – Lab participants asked for a
curriculum that would create opportunities throughout the year, at all
grades, for multidisciplinary, integrated instruction; would develop
forward-thinking skills, such as STEM/STEAM; would prominently feature
social-emotional learning; would prioritize play at all grade levels;
and would provide students with a real opportunity to influence what and
how they learn.
- Teaching Staff – Participants were eager for a
school which would support and cultivate master teachers and give those
teachers some say in the allocation of budget items.
- Student Assessment – Lab attendees looked forward
to a school that would allow students to demonstrate their mastery of
content through non-traditional evaluation (exhibits, portfolios,
discussions, presentations, etc.), in the process bolstering confidence
and independence.
Most of these “building blocks” are the polar opposite of Success
Academy’s school design. Via the Community Engagement Lab, District 1
has created a model for a school that will support
all
of students in the district, including a dual language program and
social emotional curriculum. Success Academy, on the other hand, has a
well-documented history of not meeting charter school enrollment
requirements for English Language Learners and special education
students. They are known to counsel out poor testers, or students who
struggle to meet their rigid code of conduct. They do not refill their
seats once those students have left. (This is one of the reasons that
SACS is now being audited by the comptroller.)
Success Academy Charter Schools are cookie-cutter versions of the
same school, each with the same pedagogical model. They are not
responsive to the community-based organizations and cultural
institutions in their midst, something that District 1 residents clearly
prize. Test prep is a huge part of the curriculum at Success
Academy–yet this community is asking for a school that focuses on
alternative methods of assessment and a deep rich curriculum that may or
may not align with standardized tests. Further, the school that
District 1 envisions supports teachers and makes sure that they feel
empowered as essential leaders in their school. Success Academy has a
famously high turnover rate and a reputation for a dictatorial
leadership style.
The list of incompatibilities could go on and on, but there is one
more reason why Success Academy is wrong for District 1. This reason
goes far beyond this one network of schools. We tax-paying New York City
residents deserve to have a say in what public schools come into our
communities. SUNY’s rubric for approving charter schools allots
one point
out of 64 total points to community engagement. Given that Success’
District 1 proposal was written for District 2, there is no way that
they should get even that one point on this topic.
Though some District 1 parents might welcome a Success Academy, those
same parents might also welcome the school envisioned by their fellow
community members. This week our fight is to assert one District’s right
to determine what types of schools are planted in its community.
Let this week’s hearing continue NYC public school parents’ fight to
control which schools get planted in our communities. The broken process
for approving charters, one that would completely discount a community
process like the one described here, must be stopped.
The District 1 community wants much more for their kids.
Sign their petition now. You can also go to
this page
to write to charter approver SUNY about why you do not want to see a
Success Academy in District 1. Even better, you can share what you would
rather see grow in your community instead.
Liz Rosenberg
[1] From the SUNY Preference Scoring Rubric in their January 2014
RFP