Little learners

Questions loom as education department prepares to put itself in charge of early childhood programs

PHOTO: Christina Veiga/Chalkbeat
A pre-K student at P.S. 277 in the Bronx paints a picture.

The New York City education department is gearing up for a high-stakes takeover of publicly funded early childhood programs, and care providers have big questions about how they will fare in the transition.

More than 100 organizations have submitted responses to the city’s plans to shift responsibility of child care programs from the Administration for Children’s Services to the education department. How the city responds could have major implications for New York City’s early childhood plans, which have relied heavily on community-based centers to expand free pre-K to the city’s 3- and 4-year-olds.

Done well, the transition to education department oversight could help streamline a sometimes disjointed system and boost quality of care for New York’s youngest learners. But in an industry often marked by thin margins and high turnover, the city also runs the risk of unintentionally destabilizing existing programs.

“How is it all going to be brought together?” asked Lisa Caswell, a senior policy analyst for the Day Care Council of New York, which represents publicly funded, community-based child care centers across more than 200 sites.

The council was among those to submit a formal response to the city, pleading for more details about how the shift will occur and the implications for center budgets. The transition to the education department will be complete in 2020.

While the city has pledged to guarantee a portion of centers’ funding, the council asked for more concrete details about what will be covered. Providers want to ensure they can meet fixed costs such as rent — especially in gentrifying neighborhoods — and make sure they can remain open even if enrollment fluctuates.

Also among the council’s asks: money for repairs for centers that are in NYCHA buildings and for help recruiting students. About 100 child care centers operate in public housing facilities, which are collectively in need of billions of dollars in fixes. The concern is especially acute if such centers are ever to attract economically and racially diverse groups of children, which the city has said is a goal.

“How do you make a NYCHA child care center with high needs of repairs attractive to a middle class family?” asked Mai Miksic, a senior research analyst for the council. “If you want to have a fully integrated system, which we all desperately want, you have to fully think about how it’s going to happen.”

So far, the city’s feedback to such concerns has been “reassuring,” Caswell said, with pledges to help centers make sure seats are filled and that budgets are stable. But the city faces a steep challenge in addressing the needs of such a vast system of providers, who work out of living rooms, basements, and centers large and small.

Education department spokeswoman Isabelle Boundy said the community’s concerns will be addressed in a forthcoming memo. She added that the city’s plans have been crafted with input by organizations such as the council, which has served on two different advisory groups.

“Bringing early education programs under the DOE will support quality and make enrollment easier for children, families, and providers citywide,” Boundy wrote in an email. “We’ve worked closely with community-based providers to make Pre-K and 3-K for All a reality, and these providers continue to play a critical role as we take this exciting next step.”

where's the research

Summit Learning declined to be studied, then cited collaboration with Harvard researchers anyway

English teacher Adelaide Giornelli works with ninth grade students on computers at Shasta charter public high school, part of the Summit public school system. (Photo by Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor via Getty Images)

Summit Learning, a fast-growing “personalized learning” system, touts a partnership with Harvard researchers even though Summit actually turned down their proposal to study the model.

The online platform is backed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropy and is now being used in 380 schools across the U.S.

The program “is based on collaborations with nationally acclaimed learning scientists, researchers and academics from institutions including the Harvard Center for Education Policy Research,” Summit’s website says. “Summit’s research-backed approach leads to better student outcomes.” Schools have used that seeming endorsement to back up their decision to adopt the model.

In fact, though, there is no academic research on whether Summit’s specific model is effective. And while Summit helped fund a study proposal crafted by Harvard researchers, it ultimately turned them down.

“They didn’t tell us explicitly why,” said Tom Kane, a Harvard education professor and faculty director of the Center for Education Policy Research. “All I can say is that the work that we did for Summit involved planning an evaluation; we have not measured impacts on student outcomes.”

Summit’s founder Diane Tavenner said the organization had a number of reasons for not moving forward with the proposed study, including its potential to burden teachers and to limit the platform’s ability to change or grow. Their general approach is backed by other research, she said, and their track record as a charter network.

As to the mention of the Harvard center on Summit’s website, Tavenner said the organization had learned a lot from the process of developing a potential study. Tavenner said that, after Chalkbeat began reporting this story, she offered to change the website’s language, but said Kane had not asked her to do so.

More broadly, Tavenner says she is skeptical of the usefulness of large-scale research of the sort the Harvard team proposed, saying the conclusions might be of interest to journalists and philanthropists, not schools.

“I’m not willing to give up what’s best for kids for those two audiences,” Tavenner told Chalkbeat last month.

It’s a notable stance for Summit, given its ambitious claims and the platform’s wide reach.

As “personalized learning” becomes a more popular idea among those trying to improve America’s schools, Summit’s platform has been adopted for free by schools across the country. That’s thanks largely to the backing of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the philanthropy poised to receive Zuckerberg’s billions. Summit’s model has drawn praise from parents and teachers in some schools, but proven controversial in others.

Regardless, CZI’s support means Summit could continue to grow rapidly — which has some observers wondering when its backers will show that what it’s offering is particularly effective.

“I do think that there is an obligation to provide credible evidence to schools when you’re trying to convince them to adopt things,” said John Pane, a researcher at the RAND Corporation who has extensively studied personalized learning initiatives.

Summit spreads, but research talks with Harvard team fizzle

Summit’s claims about a Harvard collaboration have their roots in conversations that began in  late 2016.

Zuckerberg’s wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, took a fateful tour of a school in the Summit Public Schools charter network two years earlier. The network soon began working with a Facebook engineering team to build out its technology.

Summit’s model has a number of components: a curriculum in core subjects for grades four through 12; weeks scheduled for students to deeply examine a topic of interest; long-term mentors for students; and a technology platform, which serves as the approach’s organizing structure. The goal is to better engage students and to give them more control over what and how they learn, Summit says.

By the 2016-17 school year, Summit had rolled out its program to more than 100 schools outside its own network. That’s also about when Summit started talks with Harvard professors Marty West and Kane.

An ideal study might have randomly assigned schools or students to use the learning platform, creating two groups that could be compared. That was a non-starter for Tavenner, as it would limit schools’ access to the platform. If 250 schools were assigned to use it, and another 250 expressed interest but were not, for example, that would be bad for students, she said last month while discussing the organization’s approach to research.

“Am I really going to say to 250 people, ‘You know what, we’re not going to actually help you, even though we actually could right now?’” she said.

Kane says they came up with a few alternatives: comparing students using Summit to others not using it in the same school or comparing schools that had adopted Summit to similar schools that hadn’t. They suggested tracking test scores as well as suspensions and attendance, measuring the effectiveness of the support offered to teachers, and using surveys to measure concepts important to Summit, like whether students felt in control of their schoolwork.

But Summit passed on an evaluation. “After many conversations with Harvard and the exploration of multiple options, we came to recognize that external research would need to meet certain baseline criteria in order for us to uphold in good faith our partnership with schools, students, and parents,” Tavenner said.

Metrics were a particular concern. “Standardized tests are not good measures of the cognitive skills,” a Summit spokesperson said, saying the organization had developed better alternatives. “Attendance and discipline are not measures of habits of success, full stop.” Tavenner said she feared that a study could stop Summit from being able to make changes to the program or that it might stop participating schools from adding new grades. (Kane and West say their plan wouldn’t have limited growth or changes.)

Tavenner told Chalkbeat that research of the kind the Harvard team was offering isn’t needed to validate their approach. Summit is based on decades of research on ideas like project-based learning, she said, citing the organization’s report titled “The Science of Summit.”

Dan Willingham, a University of Virginia educational psychologist, said that’s useful, but not the same as knowing whether a specific program helps students.

“You take a noticeable step down in confidence when something is not research-based but rather research-inspired,” he said, while noting that many education initiatives lack hard evidence of success. “There’s a hell of a lot going on in education that’s not being evaluated.”

What about Summit’s original charter network, now 11 schools? Summit cites internal data showing its graduates have success being accepted to college. But outside research is limited. A 2017 study by the Stanford-based group CREDO found that attending Summit led to modest declines in students’ reading scores and had no clear effect in math, though it looked at only a small portion of the network’s students.

The Summit charter schools are also part of an ongoing study of economically integrated charter schools, and a few were included in two widely cited RAND studies looking at personalized learning, though they didn’t report any Summit-specific information. California’s notoriously limited education data access has stymied more research, Tavenner said.

What does philanthropy owe the public?

Today, Summit’s learning platform has far outpaced its charter network. About 380 schools, with over 72,000 students, use the platform; the national charter network KIPP, by comparison, runs 224 schools serving around 100,000 students.

Summit now gets its engineering help from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, not Facebook. That philanthropic partnership has fueled its growth: While CZI has not disclosed how much it’s given to Summit, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation — through which CZI funnels much of its education giving — lists grants to Summit totalling over $70 million in 2016 and 2017.

Summit has also netted $2.3 million for the platform from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2016, and another $10 million in 2017. (CZI, the Gates Foundation, and the Silicon Valley Community Foundation are all funders of Chalkbeat.)

Some major foundations regularly invest in research to better understand whether their gifts are doing good, noted Sarah Reckhow, a Michigan State professor who studies education philanthropy. In a number of instances, that research comes to unfavorable conclusions, like a Gates-funded study on its teacher evaluation initiative or a Walton Family Foundation-backed evaluation of charter schools’ propensity to screen out students with disabilities. (A Gates spokesperson said that part of its $10 million to Summit was set aside for “measurement and evaluation.”)

Reckhow said she hasn’t yet seen that same inclination from CZI. And she worries that school districts might be less likely to carefully examine programs that are offered free of charge, like Summit.

“If you reduce that barrier, you’re making it potentially more likely to adopt something without as much scrutiny as they otherwise might do,” she said. “That increases the obligation of Summit and CZI to evaluate the work.”

CZI spokesperson Dakarai Aarons said the organization is committed to research and to Summit, and pointed to a number of schools and districts that saw academic improvements after introducing Summit’s platform. “As the program grows, we look forward to expanded research to help measure its long-term impact,” he said.

Tavenner said Summit is exploring other options to prove its approach is working, including talking to researchers who study continuous improvement. “We can’t just keep saying no to [randomized studies],” she said. “We’ve got to have another way, but I don’t have another way yet.”

Researchers Kane and West, for their part, say Summit’s concerns about evaluating its evolving model should also raise questions about Summit’s swift spread.

“The evaluation we proposed would have assessed the impact of the model at that point in time, even if the model continued to evolve,” they wrote in an email. “When a model is still changing so radically that a point in time estimate is irrelevant, it is too early to be operating in hundreds of schools.”

“Unfortunately, Summit is closer to the rule than the exception,” they said.

Chicago mayor's race

Students quiz mayoral candidates about schools and police at Whitney Young High School forum

PHOTO: Adeshina Emmanuel
Mayoral candidates attended a student-organized forum at Whitney Young High School on Thursday.

The teenage moderators of a Thursday forum at Whitney Young High School may have been inexperienced, but they didn’t go soft on the 11 Chicago mayoral hopefuls who attended, quizzing them on everything from marijuana legalization to school closings and teacher union negotiations.

In particular, students honed in on policing in their communities and schools, something moderator and event organizer Caleb Dunson said reflected their experiences and concerns.

To repeated questions about a proposed $95 million police academy that Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to build on the West Side, most of the candidates said they would oppose it — even former police chief Garry McCarthy, who called it “political spending.” The only clear supporters of the academy were Bill Daley and Mendoza, although Mendoza said she would support putting the facility in another neighborhood.

One student at the Near West Side high school asked how the candidates would address the “school-to-prison pipeline,” in which discipline on campus may set youths on a wayward path. Some students pointed out that many schools on the South and West Sides have more police and security guards than social workers and guidance counselors.  

While Daley largely skirted the policing part of the question, he said hiring more school counselors is a place to start to address students social and emotional needs, not just their safety in schools.

“We’ve got to find a way to afford that, ” he said.

Amara Enyia, a proponent of reducing policing in schools, said many under-resourced schools are “in communities that have neglected for decades.”

All the candidates agreed that they would keep Chicago as a sanctuary city, and would not direct local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. County board President Toni Preckwinkle repeated her vow to dismantle the city’s gang database. Former schools chief Paul Vallas said he would work to rebuild the city’s detective division and establish a witness protection program to deal with Chicago’s low murder clearance rate.

PHOTO: Adeshina Emmanuel
Five of the 11 candidates who attended Thursday’s forum.

When it came to the question of whether they support closing more underenrolled or underperforming schools in Chicago, the candidates were split.

“Only if it made the situation better [for students],” said Gery Chico, an attorney and former school board president.  

Five candidates answered a flat-out “no”: state representative La Shawn K. Ford, former police board president Lori Lightfoot, ex-police chief Gerry McCarthy, state comptroller Susana Mendoza and Preckwinkle.

Former alderman Bob Fioretti punted, answering that “once an elected school board is in place, they can decide.”  

Enyia and Bill Daley pledged not to close schools in a community unless the community decides. John Kozlar said he would “not close, but repurpose schools.” Meanwhile, Vallas said, “Only if the community wants it, and only if there’s a plan to repurpose,” he said.

One student asked about how the candidates would handle contract negotiations with the Chicago Teachers Union, which released a 75-point list of demands this week, including a 5 percent raise. Lightfoot praised teachers but said “we can’t negotiate and give away dollars we don’t have.” McCarthy said teachers deserve to be paid more, but had hard words for the teachers union.

“If the CTU spent half as much time putting their efforts into making sure teachers teach, instead of their politics, we’d be in a much better place,” he said.

The candidates all said they would support legalizing and taxing recreational marijuana, which sent cheers through the crowd. Asked if they would support giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote, only Daley said no.

Dunson, who helped organize and moderate the forum, called the event a success. 

PHOTO: Adeshina Emmanuel
Caleb Dunson, 16.

“Whitney Young is an amazing magnet school, but we have kids coming from some of the most under-resourced, underfunded communities in Chicago. They know what it’s like to feel inequity, and to feel oppression, and I think they were able to accurately speak to their experiences of that,” said Dunson, junior class president.

He said that the exposure to a candidates forum could be important for students later — and inform conversations at home this election cycle.

“Even if you aren’t voting,” said Dunson who at 16 can’t yet vote, “you are going back to your parents and you’re telling them what you saw at this forum.”