Q&A

Students helping students: How free pizza started a Brooklyn teen’s career helping his peers get to college

PHOTO: CARA NYC
Jamel Burgess, far left, stands with other youth advocates.

Growing up in Brooklyn, Jamel Burgess wasn’t sure why some people went to college and others never seemed to make it.

Now, he’s well aware of the barriers that keep students from higher education, from the big — family strife — to the relatively small, like CUNY’s application fee.

That knowledge has been hard won. Burgess, 25, has spent 10 years working with students hoping to get into and succeed in college, a process that started at the Franklin K. Lane campus when he was a student there getting its Student Success Center off the ground.

That center trains students to help peers through the college admissions process by means of workshops and one-on-one help sessions. The centers now operate in 40 city schools.

Chalkbeat spoke with Burgess, an organizer with the program Future of Tomorrow, just moments before he took the stage as a guest of honor at the 10-year anniversary celebration of College Access: Research & Action’s “Right to College” program. CARA has been involved with the student success center project since its inception in 2007.

In an interview, Burgess explained how he first got involved with youth advocacy and spoke of his own unexpected path to the New School, where he’s working toward a bachelor’s degree, as well as his passions for music, activism, and pizza.

Describe how you first got involved with youth organizing.
I grew up attending the Cypress Hills Collegiate Prep High School. At the time, Future of Tomorrow was recruiting students to come to meetings and basically just saying they had a safe space with food where students could come and learn how to be active in their school community. What really got my attention was the free food part. I dropped into a few meetings and it turned out to be pretty cool.

What motivated you to keep attending the meetings?
The organizer was running political education workshops and talking about things that were taking place in the city and how it impacts us as students and our schools. I found that interesting because in school we didn’t really get to talk about the bigger picture of things. We were always focused on testing, testing, testing and things in a textbook, but this was a different type of education and I really learned a lot. And the pizza was good. So I stuck around.

Something I can remember clearly was looking at how school policy and discipline codes are written, and how youth voices weren’t at the decision table. Young people are impacted by a lot of our discipline code, such as the policy to not have phones in school, the policy to have metal detectors in schools, cops in schools, Regents testing and things like that.

What were the first campaigns you got involved with?
When I started with Future of Tomorrow, the students were already working on the Student Success Center campaign. I sat on a hiring committee with a few other students to interview counselors and identify who we wanted to work at the centers. And we also worked closely with the Urban Youth Collaborative, which is made up of other youth organizations, on a city-wide level. The first centers were then open at Bushwick Campus in 2007 and at the [Franklin K.] Lane Campus in 2008.

Did the program directly impact you?
Yes, I was a youth organizer my senior year and had my own youth leader. She basically talked to me during lunch and at times I would slack off because, honestly, that’s what kids do, kids are kids. She would track me down and make sure I was on top of my stuff and I met with her during lunch or after school.

I remember her forcing me to make sure I checked my email to see if colleges are replying and emailing me back. She was really supportive in my transition to college and I’m really glad I had her. I went on to Queensborough Community College where I studied music production.

I have three brothers and only one of them actually made it to college, my younger brother. A year or two years after he graduated high school, I kept having conversations with him about getting into college and then finally he enrolled into Queensborough Community College. That’s also an important thing to highlight: He got to college a little later but still made it.

We come from the same background, the same circumstances, so I often think what could have happened if he had had a youth leader or student success center.

And why music production? Is that another one of your passions?
I remember telling my youth leader and my college counselor that the only thing I would ever want to study in school was music. I wasn’t really an A student. School didn’t really move me, but music did.

My school definitely did not have music programs. A lot of my music that I got to experiment as a young person was in my mother’s church, but there were a few opportunities in high school, like talent shows, where I got to showcase my music. Everyone knew me as the music guy. I wrote lyrics, I wrote songs, and produced beats.

And I am not back burnering my music now. I’m studying at the New School where I’m basically trying to combine my passions. I’m self-designing a major around art and activism, looking at the ways we can use music and art to create social change in communities.

Where do you see youth advocacy in your future?
I think I definitely eventually want to run my own nonprofit. I don’t know when that’s going to happen. I can keep dreaming it. But I definitely want that. Supporting my community with a strong focus on youth leadership and the arts and advocacy as well. And to continue making great music.

new schools

Denver approves more schools that will wait ‘on the shelf’ to open, despite pushback

PHOTO: Photo By Andy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty Images
Grant Beacon Middle School student Jeriah Garcia works out an algebra problem on his school-supplied tablet in 2012.

In a split vote, the Denver school board last week approved three more middle schools — but none will open right away.

Though they are modeled after successful existing schools, and though district officials feel an urgency to improve school quality districtwide, the three will wait with more than 20 others until a school building becomes available.

That could happen if the district closes a struggling school or builds a brand new one. But slowing enrollment growth means it will likely not build many schools in the coming years.

The number of approved schools on hold until they find a campus has grown over the years, even as the school board adopted a policy in 2015 that calls for replacing chronically low-performing schools with new ones deemed more likely to succeed.

This approach earned Denver a national reputation in education reform circles, but the growing backlog of schools with no clear path to opening has led to frustration among charter school operators and questions from some supporters about how committed Denver is to this model.

The makeup of Denver’s school board has changed, and not all of the new members believe closing struggling schools is good for students. In voting on the three new middle schools, three of the seven board members expressed concerns about the concept of keeping approved schools “on the shelf” because it presupposes existing schools will be shuttered.

Carrie Olson, a former Denver teacher, campaigned last year for a seat on the board on a platform of opposing school closures. Her candidacy was backed by the Denver teachers union, which also supported board member Jennifer Bacon, another former teacher.

Olson and Bacon voiced the strongest reservations about approving the three schools, temporarily called Beacon Network Middle Schools 3, 4, and 5. The schools would be run by the same administrators who oversee Kepner Beacon and Grant Beacon middle schools.

Kepner Beacon and Grant Beacon are “innovation schools,” which means they have more financial and programmatic freedom than traditional district-run schools but not as much independence as charter schools. The two schools focus on personalized learning, partly by giving students access to technology that allows them to learn at their own pace. Each is rated “green,” the second-highest rating on Denver Public Schools’ color-coded scale.

Olson and Bacon said they don’t doubt additional Beacon schools would serve students well. Rather, Bacon said, she’s concerned about having too many of the same type of school and about the length of time schools should be allowed to wait before opening. Being approved by the school board doesn’t guarantee that a school will open.

In the end, the three Beacon schools were approved to open in the fall of 2019 or thereafter. Olson voted no on all three. Bacon voted no on two of them and yes on the third.

Board president Anne Rowe, vice president Barbara O’Brien, and members Lisa Flores and Happy Haynes voted yes on all three. Angela Cobián, who was elected last fall along with Olson and Bacon, voted yes on two schools and abstained from voting on the third.

Cobián said her votes were meant to reflect that she supports the Beacon schools but shares her fellow board members’ concerns. She said she’s committed to making sure the district supports existing schools so they don’t get to the point of closure or replacement.

There are at least 24 schools already waiting for a campus in Denver. Nineteen of them were proposed by four homegrown, high-performing charter school networks. The district’s largest charter school network, DSST, has eight middle and high schools waiting to open.

District officials said they plan to spend time over the summer thinking through these concerns.

Jennifer Holladay, who leads the department that oversees charter and innovation schools, said staff will develop recommendations for how long schools should be allowed to sit on the shelf and whether the district should continue to accept “batch applications” for more than one school at a time, which has been common practice among the homegrown networks.

Payment dispute

Disputes with Tennessee testmakers aren’t new. Here’s an update on the state’s lawsuit with Measurement Inc.

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy

The testing company fired by Tennessee’s education department two years ago may have to wait until 2019 to settle the case, according to documents recently obtained by Chalkbeat.

As the future of the state’s current testing company, Questar, remains uncertain after a series of testing snafus this year, Tennessee continues to build a case against the first company it hired to usher in online testing three years ago.

The $25.3 million lawsuit, filed by Measurement Inc. of North Carolina, says the state owes about a quarter of the company’s five-year, $108 million contract, which Tennessee officials canceled after technical problems roiled the test’s 2016 rollout. So far, the state has paid the company $545,000.

The 2016 test was meant to showcase TNReady, the state’s new, rigorous, online testing program. But the online exam crashed, and the state abandoned it, asking Measurement Inc. to pivot to paper tests. After numerous delays in delivering the paper tests, Education Commissioner Candice McQueen fired the company.

Measurement Inc. filed a lawsuit last June, and the state Department of Education responded in January with a counterclaim saying the company did not fulfill its duties. Now, the state and the company have through spring 2019 to build their cases and call witnesses. (You can view Measurement Inc.’s claims, and the state’s counterclaim below).

The company argues that the state’s decision to cancel online testing and switch to paper was a series of “unrealistic, arbitrary, and changing demands,” and therefore, the state shares blame for the canceled test.

But the state department countered in its January response that Measurement Inc. breached its contract and didn’t communicate truthfully about the status of the online exam.

After Measurement Inc., Tennessee entered into a two-year contract with Minnesota-based Questar to revive the TNReady online exam. In 2017, the state opted to only use paper exams, and testing went smoothly for the most part, outside of delays in returning test results.

But things didn’t go well this spring, when Tennessee tried to return to online testing under Questar. The reasons for the complications are numerous — but different from issues that ruined the online test’s 2016 debut.

Although Tennessee completed its online testing this spring,  it was beset with technological glitches, a reported cyber attack on the testing system, and poor internet connectivity. Many districts are not planning to use the scores in student grading, and teachers can opt out of using the scores in their evaluations.

The state is negotiating with Questar about its $30 million-a-year contract and also is asking Questar’s parent company, Educational Testing Services, to take on the design work of TNReady. McQueen did not offer specifics about either, but any changes must be approved by the legislature’s fiscal review committee.

Questar’s two-year contract ends Nov. 30, and the state either will stick with the company or find its third testing vendor in four years.

You can view Measurement Inc.’s claims, and the state’s counterclaim, in full below:

Measurement Inc.’s June 2017 claim:

The Department of Education’s January response:

Measurement Inc.’s February response: