making plans

With New York City expected to unveil school diversity plan soon, advocates want the public to have a say

PHOTO: Patrick Wall
A teacher spoke about the need for greater school diversity at a 2015 meeting of the Panel for Educational Policy.

Eight months ago, Mayor Bill de Blasio visited one of New York City’s most segregated school districts and promised a plan was in the works to address the striking lack of diversity in the city’s classrooms.

That “bigger vision,” as de Blasio called it, is expected to be unveiled by June. But many who have been lobbying to desegregate schools say the process of crafting that vision has been far too private — and that could hurt the Department of Education’s chances for success.

At Wednesday’s Panel for Educational Policy meeting, members of a group called the New York City Alliance for School Integration and Desegregation will ask the city to include “robust public involvement” in any diversity plan put forward. The Alliance, which goes by ASID, is made up of interested parents, students, teachers, researchers and local diversity advocates.

“What we want the DOE to do is create an actual planning process that is inclusive of stakeholders across the city. That has not been the case,” said Matt Gonzales, who leads school integration efforts for the nonprofit New York Appleseed and is a member of ASID. “Any efforts towards integration or desegregation always, historically, have required local buy-in.”

Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña has acknowledged that herself. Referring to school rezonings, which are often contentious and highlight racial divides, Fariña said in February 2016 that agreements are reached “because we talked and listened to everybody.”

“It’s not a mandate you’re putting down people’s throats,” she said.

Education department spokesman Will Mantell said officials have discussed diversity issues with “school staff, advocates, elected officials, researchers and community members.”

“These ongoing discussions inform the development of the diversity plan we’re releasing later this school year,” he wrote in an email.

But advocates say they have been left in the dark about the city’s specific plan, though officials have been eager to reference it when questioned about the city’s commitment to desegregating schools.

For Miriam Nunberg, public input could help officials diagnose the real reasons schools become segregated by race and economic status — and help them develop specific solutions for addressing the problem. She is a parent in Brooklyn’s District 15 who wants to change middle school admissions policies to make schools more diverse.

“There are a lot of presumptions made about why things happen and why there’s so much of an underrepresentation of certain groups [of students] in selective schools,” Nunberg said. “Without asking the questions, you’re not going to know the answers.”

ASID members will also push the education department to approve a policy statement declaring diversity a priority. The City Council asked the DOE to do that in 2014 and the department has yet to act. When Chalkbeat asked Fariña about it in August 2016, she said that such pronouncements are “just words” without a plan.

The advocates say they don’t expect the PEP to take specific action on Wednesday, but want to reach the chancellor and make a public statement.

“We want to go where we can speak with them directly,” Gonzales said.

word choice

A quietly edited report and dueling blog posts reveal a divide over the ‘portfolio model’

Diane Ravitch speaks at California State University Northridge. (Photo by Michael Buckner/Getty Images)

A report on school choice released last month offered this in a list of strategies for improving schools: “creating a portfolio approach that treats all types of schools equally.”

Today, that reference is gone from the report — a small edit that reveals notable disagreements among prominent names in education who often agree.

The report was issued by the Learning Policy Institute, an education think tank started by Linda Darling-Hammond, an influential Stanford professor. Then came a critique from Diane Ravitch and Carol Burris of the Network for Public Education, a pro-public education group that opposes charter schools. And then came the edits to the original report, first noted by Burris and Ravitch.

At the center of the disagreement is the report’s use of the word “portfolio.” The portfolio model is a strategy offering parents the choice of different school types (typically including charter schools) and having a central body holding all schools accountable for results and manages certain functions like enrollment. And the Learning Policy Institute praises Denver, a district that has adopted it.

Denver’s collaboration agreement with its charter schools “drives equitable funding and access for all schools, and strives to replicate the most effective schools of all kinds,” the report says. The report also recommends putting the “focus on educational opportunities for children, not governance structures,” and notes that most school choice in the U.S. involves options within traditional districts.

Ravitch and Burris pushed back on the Washington Post’s Answer Sheet blog. “School governance directly affects the rights and well-being of students,” they wrote, pointing to instances where charter schools have pushed out students with disabilities or shut down abruptly.

That criticism seems to have gotten through. Since the debate began, the Learning Policy Institute has edited its report to remove the term “portfolio” and changed other language. One recommendation — “focus on educational opportunities for children, not governance structures for adults” — became “focus on high-quality learning for children, not the preferences of adults.”

“The language change was made after some public feedback suggested that the use of the word ‘portfolio’ in the report was being misinterpreted,” Barbara McKenna, a spokesperson for the Learning Policy Institute, said in an email. “The report used the word ‘portfolio’ in one of the recommendations in the most straightforward sense of the term — an array of options.”

The report does not indicate that it has been updated since it was published late last month. McKenna said that’s because the revisions weren’t substantial.

Meanwhile, Darling-Hammond and co-authors have responded, and Ravitch and Burris offered an additional rejoinder.

Darling-Hammond said in an interview that she neither rejects nor wholly subscribes to the portfolio model. “Unplanned, uncoordinated, unmanaged choice has a lot of challenges and problems,” she said.

This debate comes as a new group, known as the City Fund, has raised at least $200 million in order to spread the portfolio model to dozens of U.S. cities. Whether the approach reliably improves academic outcomes remains up for debate.

public comment

What to expect from six hours of charter school hearings Wednesday night

PHOTO: Chicago Tribune

The public can weigh in on three new charters, 11 renewals and one potential revocation on Wednesday night during a marathon session of hearings at Chicago Public Schools headquarters on 42 W. Madison Street.

One school, the Near West Side campus of Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men High School, could lose its charter and be forced to close. Parents and families will have a chance to weigh in during a public comment section.

Urban Prep operates three campuses in Bronzeville, Englewood, and University Village. Only the latter, which reported 176 students this fall, is on the list to potentially shutter.

The first hearing, from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., will be about new charters with proposals to open in the fall of 2019:

  • Intrinsic Charter School for a traditional citywide high school;
  • Project Simeon 2000 for a school that would serve at-risk students in middle grades in Englewood, where the district is planning a new $85 million high school to open in 2022;
  • Chicago Education Partnership to open a traditional K-8 school in Austin.

From 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., the district will hear public comment on renewal applications from 11 private operators as well as the proposal to revoke Urban Prep’s University Village campus. The charter and contracts under consideration for renewal are:

  • Noble Network of Charter Schools (whose founder Michael Milkie just resigned amid allegations of improper conduct with alumni)
  • Namaste Charter School
  • Kwame Nkrumah Academy Charter School
  • Horizon Science Academy Southwest Chicago Charter School (Chicago Lawn Charter School)
  • Great Lakes Academy Charter School
  • Foundations College Preparatory Charter School
  • Chicago Math and Science Academy (CMSA) Charter School
  • Hope Institute Learning Academy
  • Excel Academy of Southshore
  • Excel Academy Southwest
  • Chicago High School for the Arts (ChiArts)

Those interested in submitting comment may register in person before the meetings, send a fax to 773-553-1559, or email iandipublichearings@cps.edu.