Report of the UFT Small School Task Force June 2005
Jun 1, 2005 4:05 PM
Small School Task Force Report
June 2005
New York City is no stranger to small schools. It has been a leader in the creation of more than 250 small schools, the bulk of them secondary, over the past quarter of a century. Throughout its history the United Federation of Teachers has supported, along with many other reforms, the creation of these small schools. Their astonishing variety of themes, educational approaches, student populations, partnerships and problems offers a chance for innovation and experimentation, and a way to address the wide variety of student needs and interests in New York City's schools. The small schools often provide opportunities for teacher voice in a personalized, collegial, collaborative and professional work place. For parents and students, small schools provide another choice in the public school system.
Nevertheless, the recent surge in small schools has caused serious problems. The UFT’s concern has mounted as it has heard from small school chapters, as well as representatives from the large schools that often house them, about overcrowding, unsafe hallways, inadequate resources, friction over shared space, a climate of mistrust and a greater need for union presence. These are urgent problems the UFT must address, while maintaining its high standards of service to all its members.
In order to address these issues and best serve the membership, the UFT Delegate Assembly passed a resolution on April 30, 2004 that authorized "…the President to appoint a Small School Task Force to investigate the issues raised by the establishment of small schools, and to report its findings and recommendations to the UFT Executive Board and Delegate Assembly." That is the subject of this report.
EFFECTIVE SMALL SCHOOLS
Based on long experience, the UFT has found that "small" is not a remedy in and of itself. Small schools, when they are effective, set the conditions for student achievement. At their best, small schools provide an environment in which:
Teachers and school leaders have common planning time;
School leaders develop a disciplined, collaborative school culture;
Teachers and students have many opportunities to know each other well;
Teachers monitor student performance and adjust instruction accordingly;
Teachers are supported in exercising their professional judgment;
There is accessible instructional expertise in the building;
The facility is appropriate for teaching and learning.
If these conditions are met, then and only then can the school go on to develop its particular educational mission, be it, for example, instruction around a theme, a community service component, a science or arts focus, a portfolio graduation system or a career and technical emphasis.
Having participated with several chancellors in the start-up and sustaining of small schools, the UFT has learned that creating a large number of small schools requires even more demanding conditions. There must be a coherent long-term strategy and strong support from the central administration. At the same time there must be autonomy for the new schools to depart from irrelevant or repressive requirements. Creating such conditions requires vision and trust among all those involved in creating the school--teachers, parents, administrators and partners. The union's experience has shown that these conditions do not develop overnight; they do not come about by fiat, nor are they brought about by money alone. Furthermore, coherent vision is hard to achieve through repeated changes in the school system's leadership, especially when the vision is glimpsed through an ideological rather than an educational lens.
ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM
The creation of small schools has not been a sustained, deliberate or coordinated effort on the part of the New York City public school system. The creation of these schools over time is characterized only by an unvarying history of varying approaches and motives that has often created new problems or exacerbated existing ones. There are several reasons for this erratic record.
Changes in systemic support: Each turnover in school system leadership has brought with it a different degree of systemic support for small schools. Some chancellors and erstwhile community school district and high school superintendents have been enthusiastic, some merely supportive, others indifferent and one or two even hostile to the "small school movement." This has meant that in some years there has been a surge in the number of small schools and in other years the level remained constant. Geographical distribution of small schools, which under the former governance system depended on the relative receptiveness and interests of district superintendents, was uneven.
The role of diverse outside agencies: The impetus for the creation of small schools has come from a variety of sources operating outside of and sometimes in collaboration with the New York City public school system. These include foundations, universities, businesses, community groups and individuals, each with its own beliefs about the role that small schools should play within a larger school system. These beliefs often manifest themselves as guidelines, or, when these beliefs are accompanied by financial support, as is often the case, requirements for specific grade-level configurations, educational approaches and outside partnerships.
Shifting rationales and reasons: The rationale for the creation of small schools has changed over the years. Some advocates view them as an alternative, not a repudiation of large high schools. Others see them as autonomous entities within a public school system, much the way charters now operate. In recent times the small schools have been seen as replacements for large, failing high schools the school system must close. Some believe that large is inherently unsound and that all schools, especially secondary, should be small. The current New York City Department of Education administration has moved small schools center stage, as a solution in and of themselves to academic and administrative problems of the school system. Because of these shifting rationales, support for small schools has been erratic and the probability for long-term success of individual small schools is often unclear.
Lack of Capacity: Starting a new school is a challenging endeavor, one of the most daunting exercises an educational professional is likely to undertake. For such efforts to be successful the school planning team and initial staff must include a cadre of experienced, knowledgeable educators and the new schools must receive appropriate support from the school system. The New York City Department of Education has chosen to launch scores of new schools each year for the last three years and does not have the administrative or instructional ability to ensure and sustain the quality of all the schools it is creating. The supply of school leaders and teachers with the skills needed to work in a new school is much smaller than the demand created by so many new schools. Consequently, inexperienced principals lead many new schools with only a few years of teaching, let alone school leadership experience. The department often staffs the schools with novice teachers, many of who have yet to master fundamental pedagogical skills. At the same time principals and teachers are taking on the immense effort of starting a new school they often are struggling to learn the basics of their job. Moreover, there are distinctive features of small school organization and instruction, such as the use of advisories, with which the new school principal and staff should have a working familiarity, yet there are new schools where not one staff person has had such experience. The combination of staffing new schools without an appropriate staff and inadequate support from the department is a recipe for failure.
A BRIEF HISTORY
In the 1970s, the small school movement had its beginnings in the creation of "mini" schools, mostly in Manhattan, in response to low academic performance and security problems in middle schools. The UFT worked vigorously during this period to provide services to members in the "mini" schools though it was often difficult for the chapter leaders to represent all the members in their buildings due to differences in administrations, schedules, and grade levels among the mini schools. During this same period "alternative" high school programs for special "at risk" student populations such as homeless adolescents, newly arrived English language learners, teenage parents and working students expanded. In 1983, the chancellor brought these programs together into their own high school superintendency, the “Alternative Superintendency,” separate and apart from the geographically based high school superintendencies that then existed.
Several reports issued in the 1980s critical of the state of American public education, notably "A Nation at Risk" and "A Nation Prepared," drove changes in public education. These reports called for smaller, student-centered institutions that would work with colleges, businesses and communities to prepare students to face new demands, technologies and job markets in a global economy. Theodore Sizer, in his 1984 study of high schools, Horace's Compromise, called for smaller schools, classes and caseloads so that teachers and students could get to know each other and their colleagues. The small schools that the Coalition of Essential Schools, Mr. Sizer's organization, created in cities nationwide in the early 1990s were seen as an alternative to large high schools, operating as a network within the public school system but with greater degrees of autonomy than other schools.
These schools shared a specific philosophy and approach to education based upon, in addition to small size:
personalized "student-centered" environments;
in depth, cross disciplinary studies;
active parental involvement;
time for teacher collaboration and planning;
emphasis on development of critical thinking skills;
student evaluation based on portfolio and other performance assessments, not only standardized tests.
In New York, Chancellor Fernandez, working with the UFT and a New York City educational organization, the Center for Collaborative Education (CCE), began the phase out of Julia Richman High School in Manhattan. Four small schools operating under the principles set forth by Mr. Sizer's coalition, as well as two other autonomous schools the school system created independently, replaced Julia Richman High School. These schools were eventually placed in the former Julia Richman building after being "hot housed" in other locations during the phase out of the large school. At the same time a similar process, also done collaboratively by the Chancellor, the UFT and the CCE took place in James Monroe High School in the Bronx. Overall, these small schools had a smaller student population than the former large high school they replaced and the subsequent "deflection" of students who would have attended Julia Richman to other high schools in Manhattan led to overcrowding in those other schools, an effect not addressed at that time.
During this time the school system itself under Chancellor Fernandez and the then Board of Education, phased out several low performing high schools and re-opened them as theme-based specialized secondary schools, most notably Andrew Jackson High School in Queens, which became the four Campus Magnet High Schools, and Erasmus Hall High School which became known as the Erasmus Hall High School Campus. Conflicts over use of facilities, discipline codes, class schedules and school-wide activities among the small schools housed in one building immediately surfaced and continue to be issues in many buildings where schools share space. When principals and administrators were unprepared or unwilling to collaborate with their colleagues in a building the conflicts often had a debilitating effect on all the schools in a building.
Other large schools developed plans to assign students to "houses," small units within the structure of a larger school that would have their own support services and thematic approaches. The school system, however, never adequately supported this approach and it quickly fell victim to budget cuts and apathy. Nevertheless, as has become clear, the creation of autonomous small schools is not a sufficient plan by itself to provide a quality education to New York City students, and a fresh look needs to be given to the concept of "houses" and similar ideas.
In April 1992, the Fund for New York City Public Education (now New Visions for Public Schools), a non-profit organization working in cooperation with the UFT and the New York City public schools and funded by the Aaron Diamond Foundation, invited a variety of groups and individuals, both public and private, to submit proposals for small "innovative and imaginative schools." These schools later came to be known collectively as New Vision Schools, of which there are now nearly 40.
The small schools were created through a rigorous application and interview process that included representatives of New Visions, the UFT, the then New York City Board of Education, businesses, universities and community groups. The schools were organized around themes, innovative instruction, community involvement and a requirement that students come from diverse academic and social backgrounds. School teams received financial support for a year of planning, leadership development, supplies and consultants. This was the first example in New York City of opening up public school creation to entities and individuals from outside the system, backed by large-scale private sector support.
The creation of these schools was fully supported by Chancellor Fernandez, but a major problem in their creation is one that continues to plague our schools: the issue of finding space. At that time, however, small schools were looking for room in underutilized school buildings, renovated locations or leased spaces. For planning teams these "real estate issues" sometimes took priority over all other issues, including educational and administrative ones. A second major problem was that of mission. As these schools grew, many of them had to face the reality that their emphasis on themes and high-level academics often clashed with the reality of many students' less-than-proficient skill levels in reading, writing and math.
THE SECOND PHASE
In 1994 four nonprofit educational groups split a $25-million Annenberg Foundation grant that included funds for the creation of 100 new small schools (though far fewer were ultimately created) as well as support for those small schools already in operation. This initiative soon faced conflicts among its four partners about how a network of small schools should, and could, function within a larger system. The partners sought to create an autonomous school district for these schools, the “Learning Zone.” (This was an early model for the "autonomy zone," which the Department of Education created unilaterally in September 2004. The 29 schools in this zone, in return for greater control over their budgets and relief from various New York City Department of Education regulations, must meet higher standards for performance or face closure.) The Annenberg partners, however, were unable to gain support for their "learning zone" idea from then Chancellor Crew who had his own agenda for reform. This led to the departure of one crucial founder and a weakened alliance among the remaining three. Some small networks flourished, many did not, and without strong guidance they failed to have the intended systemic impact. Neither the central nor the district-level bureaucracy was organized to support small schools, nor was Chancellor Crew amenable to changing the system's structure to accommodate small schools created by outside agencies. The educational approaches and autonomy were often in conflict with system-wide polices and directives, another portent of current problems. In addition, the school reform agenda in the late 90s shifted to questions of governance, charters, vouchers, privatization and standards and the small schools movement took a back seat to these and other issues. At the same time the educational philosophy of many of these schools, which included a strong emphasis on performance-based assessments was threatened by the withdrawal by New York State Commissioner Mills of waivers for the use of such assessments in lieu of standardized tests. The creation of new schools stalled. There was even some question as to their continued existence and if they could be brought into a school system that was becoming more and more centralized.
The passage of the federal No Child Left Behind legislation in 2001 placed new demands on schools and school systems for greater student achievement, testing, accountability and teacher performance with consequences for failure to meet performance standards. Small school proponents, backed by funds from philanthropic organizations, used this opportunity to reinvigorate the movement. In New York City, the Gates and Carnegie Foundations and the Open Society Institute gave a $30 million grant to New Visions specifically to transform large low achieving high schools into small secondary schools, combining tough academic programs with youth development principles and community service. A major feature of this "New Century" initiative was the mandated involvement of each new school with entities outside of the school system such as universities, cultural organizations, corporations and community organizations. Over 50 New Century schools, most of them sharing space in existing school buildings, have opened in the past three years. In September 2003, the Gates Foundation expanded the number of outside partners with an additional $51-million grant for small school creation. In addition to New Visions, portions of this grant went to several new organizations such as the International Partnership Schools, Outward Bound, Replications, Inc., the Asia Society, the College Board, CUNY and The Center for Youth Development and Education, expanding the number of organizations involved in new school creation in the city. In February 2005, the Gates Foundation and the Dell Foundation announced an additional $32-million donation. At the same time other groups, in collaboration with the New York City Department of Education, have opened small schools in various locations such as corporate office space, college campuses and existing schools. On February 1, 2005 Mayor Bloomberg announced the opening for September 2005 of 52 more small schools, which will bring the total of new schools created under the Klein/Bloomberg administration to 157. Their stated goal is 200 new schools by 2006.
THE CURRENT PICTURE
Now, small schools have moved from an experimental stage in New York City to a core strategy of high school reform. Small schools are replacing or in the process of replacing many longstanding comprehensive high schools and creating a major role in the system for outside funders and agencies who advocate them.
The scale of this effort is beyond anything that has been done before in New York City and the consequences are equal in size. Now the effort is simultaneous across the city, involving many large high schools rather than only one or two. Nevertheless, the nonexistence of a coordinated, detailed, understandable plan for creating, sustaining and closing schools, large and small, has resulted in overcrowding, unsafe schools, scheduling inequities, unequal distribution of supplies and other resources to schools and administrative confusion. (This situation still obtains, as noted by Tom Vander Ark, the Gate's Foundation education director in a February 2005 statement regarding New York City's small school effort.) In the Bronx alone, since September 2002, eleven large high schools, most of them already overcrowded, have received over 30 small schools. Two of them, Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft began a phase-out under a redesign plan developed by the now disbanded Chancellor's District. The then Bronx Superintendency began a phase-out of two additional high schools, South Bronx and Morris. Nevertheless the large numbers of incoming ninth graders, more than could be accommodated by the small schools if they were indeed to remain small, forced the newly formed Department of Education to defer any presumed phase-out plans. Compounding the problem caused by the poor planning and the increased enrollment of ninth graders in the large schools, was the department's insistence in September 2003 on shoehorning additional small schools into the overcrowded, unsafe buildings despite protests by parents, teachers and students. In response to these protests and the unfavorable media coverage they engendered, the department has announced that two more Bronx high schools, Evander Childs and Walton will not accept ninth graders in September 2005. In Brooklyn six low performing high schools, (Prospect Heights, George W. Wingate, Thomas Jefferson, Bushwick High School and two Erasmus Hall Campus schools), have began a phase out while about 15 small schools occupy their former space. In Manhattan, George Washington High School has completed its phase out, begun as part of the changes under the now defunct Chancellor's District and now five autonomous schools are housed on the campus. Seward Park, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Park West High School have stopped accepting 9th graders as small schools move in. In Queens, Springfield Gardens has also begun a phase out period and the department of education has placed three small schools in the building.
As the number of small schools has grown so too have the problems. Aside from the normal turbulence of change, the school system, especially at the high school level, has suffered serious disruption from the department's latest "reform" mission. In particular, the large, established high schools have been affected by the fallout from small-schools creation.
In Manhattan, for example, Washington Irving High School, a building with a history of safety and security concerns received hundreds of students deflected by the closing and phasing out of other high schools in the borough. This created a situation so unsafe that students and staff at one point refused to enter the building. The large "host" high schools in the Bronx, such as Walton and Evander Childs, most of them already designated under the No Child Left Behind legislation as "in need of improvement," have become severely overcrowded and dangerous, as at Washington Irving. In Brooklyn, incoming ninth grade students were deflected from the closing high schools to other already overcrowded schools, some operating on double and triple schedules, exacerbating safety concerns there. Many large high-performing schools, especially those in Brooklyn, received an influx of ninth graders performing below proficiency, and have not received the necessary supports to instruct them appropriately. The deflection of students to high schools known for their high-quality academic programs--Clara Barton, James Madison, Midwood, Edward R. Murrow and Fort Hamilton--has so severely stressed these schools that they are in danger of being unable to maintain their rich academic programs.
Not only have the large high schools given up classrooms. Each small school also needs its own rooms for administration, student support and other services, plus use of cafeterias, gyms, auditoriums and, of course, hallways. The large schools also bore the brunt of accepting "over the counters," those students who enter the school system after the beginning of the school year. This further increased class size in the large host school while small classes were maintained in the small schools. These inequities often fuel the charge that the small schools are elitist and favored by the school system leadership, even causing conflict among UFT members within a building.
Parents and teachers complain about the lack of attention being paid to the students in the large high schools, especially those that are phasing out. Most of their students will be attending the school for three more years. The abolition of community school boards and of the central board of education has led to a lower level of involvement by parents, teachers, students and the community at large in the decisions to close schools and replace them with new, smaller ones.
Nor has the performance of small schools always lived up to the promise of this reform. For example, two of Brooklyn’s “phase-out” schools, identified by the state and the city as long-term failures, are small schools located on the Erasmus Hall High School Campus, an indication that reduced size alone is not sufficient for success.
Repeated UFT warnings to school system leadership about overcrowding, safety, inadequate resources and friction over shared space, even prior to the opening of this newest wave of small schools, have been rejected. The system has continued to create small schools without first deciding upon a definite location. (Sixteen of the 52 new schools, nearly a third of those announced for September 2005, have no site.) In other cases the department is placing many of them in inappropriate space, at a near-frenzied pace, ignoring with grim determination the consequences, the implications and the lessons from history.
THE UFT RESPONDS
Under previous school system administrations there was a more collaborative relationship. There was a willingness to address the problems either through informal discussions or through collective bargaining. Rules regarding rights of teachers in schools that are closing or phasing out, and the creation of a fair and equitable school-based option staffing and transfer plan to meet the needs of members in both small schools and those that are phasing out, were negotiated. They continue in effect. In the past, in order to attract teachers to new small schools the UFT worked with collaborating organizations, such as New Visions, CCE and ACORN, to get the word out about the opportunities available in these new schools and to avoid the problems associated with staffing a new school with all new teachers. Many principals of these new small schools had years of experience, both teaching and administrative, in both large and small schools.
In 1993, then President Sandy Feldman appointed a UFT Task Force on Nontraditional Schools that issued a report (November 1993) and made recommendations for union representation and servicing of members that included a chapter leader in each autonomous school, assignment of small schools to specific district representatives or staff in order to avoid a disproportionate number of school assignments to any one district representative, and a closer alignment of the UFT's divisional vice-presidents with the changing structure of new small schools. These changes were adopted by the UFT delegate assembly.
The UFT has currently attempted to address the issues raised by the latest group of small school creations. The UFT informed the Department of Education that their emphasis on small schools at the expense of the students and teachers in large schools was having an adverse effect on the entire system. The UFT continues to support the idea of small schools and to continue to do its best to provide services to members who work in them. Nevertheless, the UFT is on record as having serious misgivings about the Klein administration's implementation of the small school strategy. The UFT Delegate Assembly passed a December 4, 2002 resolution that called for a comprehensive, realistic plan from the department to address space, academics, support services and methods for getting information to parents, students and teachers. Despite this effort by the UFT the department continues to create too many schools, too soon, without regard for sustainability, the effect on other schools, the recruitment of staff and students, provision of support services and the assignment of students. The creation of an Office of New Schools by the department has done little to alleviate the problem, as their focus has been on creation of small schools, and not enough on the ramifications of small schools on the system. The concerns for overcrowding, safety and security continue and are only addressed when the UFT brings specific instances of egregious situations to the attention of the public and the media, as at Washington Irving High School. In light of the ongoing problems that the department's small schools program causes and to which the department is unresponsive, the President appointed this task force.
WORK OF THE TASK FORCE
Task force members include chapter leaders of both large and small schools, officers, district representatives and staff. The task force held seven meetings: June 24; September 23; October 21; November 18; December 16, 2004; and January 13 and March 10, 2005. After the first meeting the task force members agreed that the recommendations would address two broad areas, systemic issues and UFT membership needs. Task force members shared articles, opinion pieces and research on small schools and used as a guide their own professional experiences based on the situation in the schools in which they teach or with which they are familiar. The task force sent a survey to over 200 chapter leaders in large and small secondary schools, using responses to this survey to guide the formulation of the final recommendations. In addition, MAK [sic] Mitchell, director of campus support for the New York City Department of Education Office of New Schools spoke to the task force in order to provide a department of education perspective on the current situation.
WHAT THE SURVEY SHOWS
The survey of small-school chapter leaders, and of chapter leaders in affected large high schools, confirmed that members are indeed feeling the negative effects of this rapid and poorly planned scale-up.
Almost one-quarter (23%) of chapter leaders identified school organization and planning as the paramount problem among seven facing their schools right now. “There appears to have been no forethought in placing seven schools into one building,” wrote one. “There is a growing sense that the school is out of control,” another said. A third wrote: “It is frustrating to have students sent to us as safety transfers or under other circumstances who are not interested in our specialty and do not want to be here.”
Safety and overcrowding were nearly tied as second place concerns (19% and 17%). “Too many kids and the building is way over capacity and this poses health and safety issues,” one chapter leader explained. “There are full-time dance and music programs, but no dance or music room and no separate guidance office for counseling. Micromanagement [which 15% of respondents cited as their top concern] is coming from the principal, but she is pushed to do it from the LIS (local instructional superintendent) so we resent the LIS.”
Supplies also ranked as a serious problem. “I have been working at this school for almost two years and I still do not have textbooks, workbooks, materials and equipment necessary for instruction of 150 students that I teach on a daily basis. I have never received any curriculum. I brought what I used in the prior school,” was one comment.
Not all chapter leaders had such extreme situations. Several said their schools function well and that leadership is supportive of the staff. But unfortunately, they were in the minority. More common was the sentiment that small schools were overwhelmed by several problems at once. “All of these problems [have] equal weight,” one chapter leader responded to the request to rank problems. “It is difficult to teach without supplies, in overcrowded classes with safety concerns. We do not have adequate resources for our students with IEPs and who are ELL (English language learners).”
Asked specifically about shared space, several lamented that their facilities were woefully inadequate. “Our school does not have a gym, cafeteria, auditorium, no science labs and every teacher shares classrooms; in some cases there are three teachers sharing classrooms. The third floor of our school was taken away to house yet another high school. Help! Help!”
Help does indeed seem to be in order. The survey proposed a range of measures to help members in these schools. We asked chapter leaders to rank these possible responses as well. They responded that there is a need to do more organizing work in small schools, as well as a need to organize with a specific focus on the unique concerns of members in those schools.
● Many respondents recommended specific meetings for small school chapter leaders.
● Many wanted a designated union staff member to oversee issues in the small schools. That person would be familiar with the first- and second-year issues that are likely to arise in new small schools, and be prepared to suggest solutions that serve member needs, comply with our contract, and address the needs of the school in its start-up phase.
● Respondents wanted to see a training program especially for small school chapter leaders.
● Participants from large schools proposed specific meetings for impacted schools. Several respondents praised their district representatives for keeping them informed and advising them on a multitude of issues. But they said they encounter problems with their principals and building leaders that they cannot always resolve or do not have the experience to deal with. One respondent said the principals of small schools often “effectively choose chapter leaders” and then abuse or disregard the contract. Among the suggestions was time for chapter leaders to serve members. One wrote, “Small school chapter leaders need time to protect their members. If the UFT loses the battle at this growing front, it will have a devastating effect on teacher morale…”
The answers to the survey, along with the discussions at the seven task force meetings, which mirrored and expanded upon the survey results, formed the basis for the recommendations of the task force.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Our recommendations fall into two areas. The first contains recommendations that we hope the department will use to plan thoughtfully for and support students and teachers in small schools. The second area includes recommendations for how the UFT can build small school and host school chapters.
A. SYSTEMIC PLANNING AND SUPPORT FOR SMALL SCHOOLS
●The UFT must continue, in a variety of public and private forums, to demand that before any new schools are created there be a comprehensive, realistic plan for placing small schools in appropriate settings.
Many of the problems related to overcrowding and safety have been caused by placing new small schools within buildings housing larger schools. The problem of "student deflection" has increased the size of already large schools by reducing the number of seats available in large schools that have closed or are phasing out. All students deserve to be placed in buildings that can accommodate them. Planning must include building or acquiring sufficient space for new schools based on realistic numbers of students. The New York City Department of Education must secure dedicated space for new small schools through leases, arrangements with community-based organizations, cultural institutions or new construction to alleviate some of the overcrowding in existing high schools. Impact studies that show the effect of placing a small school in a building that already houses another school must also be a part of the plan. The plan must be disseminated in a public and transparent manner. Although the department has taken some positive steps this year to avoid a recurrence of the more egregious situations that have arisen in the past two years due to lack of planning, much more needs to be done. The announcement of the opening of any new school should not take place until appropriate space is available.
● The Department of Education must scale the number of new small schools it creates to the capacity of the system to establish quality schools with reasonable prospects of success.
The number of quality new schools the department can create during a school year is limited. Experience suggests that, space being available, thirty new schools throughout the city is a realistic number. Such limits would establish equilibrium between supply and demand of experienced and accomplished school leaders and staff and those that are new to teaching and leadership positions. The department should be able to provide such a limited number of new schools the human and material resources they need to sustain their success.
● The New York State Education Department and the Commissioner should permit small schools that wish to do so to use valid and reliable performance based assessments in social studies and science that align with the state standards.
Successful small schools take advantage of their size to cultivate distinctive educational programs. In order to foster this it is necessary for the New York State Education Department and the Commissioner to allow for an approach to assessment that complements the school's educational vision. They should permit schools that can demonstrate that their student assessment system is equal in rigor to the Regents Examinations in social studies and science and shows student mastery of the state standards of learning to use such a method.
● The Department of Education must establish transitional centers for "over the counter" students who enroll during the school year.
The academic programs of schools are continually disrupted by large numbers of students who enter throughout the school year. These students often do not get the education they deserve when they are placed into classes after the beginning of the term. This has been a particular problem in large high schools and, until recently the "over the counter" student was not placed in the small school, but rather into the often already overcrowded host school, further highlighting the system's lack of support for large high schools. This year the department has begun placing these students into small schools, a misguided policy to “share the burden” that paradoxically reinvents many of the problems that plague large high schools. Of particular concern to staff in small schools, many of which are theme-based, is the placement of students into the school who are not interested in the particular theme. This does a disservice to students and teachers and undermines the whole idea of choice and providing a variety of educational opportunities. The department should establish transitional centers with appropriate staff as well as the academic and social programs that will enable these late entry students to be evaluated, brought up to speed and then transferred to the school of their choice.
● Services for special education students and English language learners must be provided to all eligible students.
The small schools, especially in their first year or two of operation are not given the instructional or support staff to provide mandated services to special populations of students. In addition to the legal ramifications, the lack of special education services negates many of the benefits that a smaller, personalized environment can give to these students. The department should create a campus, regional or borough-wide system so that small schools can share instructional and support services in a manner that allows small schools to provide these services affordably.
● There must be an equitable distribution of resources, repairs and services to all schools in a building, including those that are phasing out.
Building repairs, the installation of science and computer labs, repair of athletic fields and similar renovations and improvements must benefit all schools in a building.
● There must be specific supports for students in phase- out schools to ensure either a diploma or its equivalent.
The department must not turn its back on students in phase-out schools. There should be a review of each student's credit accumulation and academic performance so that the Department of Education and other city agencies can make an appropriate educational or career-training program available to these students.
● Provide adequate time prior to the opening of the school for teams of educators to prepare properly for the opening of the new school.
Many school planning teams must develop an instructional program and attend to administrative details for the new school while continuing in their regular assignments. The current planning period is also very short. An adequate planning period could avoid many of the unanticipated problems that arise due to poor or inadequate planning. Adequate planning time would also give school teams a better opportunity to explain their school's mission to interested parents and to students.
● The DOE must time the announcement of new school openings to coincide with the citywide student application process.
Students should have the opportunity to apply to new schools during the regular admissions period. Announcing the opening of new schools late in the fall or in the winter creates a need for a second round of school applications that places an extra burden on parents and students and often does not allow new school teams to recruit new students who know about and are truly interested in the educational program the school offers.
● Involve teachers, parents and the community in the design of new schools.
The current round of new school creation has not adequately involved parents, teachers, members of the community and students. This is especially true of those small schools that originated in schools that are phasing out. In order to share information and discuss possible courses of action, the department should hold well-advertised meetings, both large and small, with parents, school leadership teams, parents' associations, students, elected officials and community groups, especially those connected to the host or phase-out school, to explain the department's reasons for their proposed decision, with relevant data to support their case. The department should also include a range of possible options for parents and students. There have been justified complaints that the department has presented decisions on creation and phase out of schools to parents and communities as a fait accompli, rather than as an opportunity for discussion and possible involvement of these stakeholders in final decisions.
● The department should continue its exploration of a variety of campus models so that large and small schools can co-exist within one building, bringing the benefits of both configurations to teachers and students.
There should be a variety of options available to students. Large schools can provide services and courses that might not be available in small schools. Campus models, such as the one we have proposed at Columbus High School in which a large school "anchors" a campus of smaller schools and in which there could be a sharing of resources, services and benefits of both large and small schools should continue to be explored with the department.
● There should be a valid and reliable longitudinal study of the effectiveness of the small schools that takes into account all variables that exist in small schools.
The Mayor and Chancellor have touted the achievements of small schools, but there has been little or no objective public evaluation of the small schools as a group. The limited student achievement data from small schools indicate that there is, just as in their large counterparts, a range of performance. There is also some evidence that common characteristics of these schools such as small class size, individualization of instruction and teacher collaboration, and not just smallness, are responsible for higher rates of student achievement. There should be an independent evaluation of small school performance with genuine statistical comparisons between large and small schools. Qualitative and quantitative data from those small schools that have existed for several years and have available the same performance indicators as the large high schools would be especially valuable. Basing the "success" of a school on selective results from one entering class after one year of performance in only one or two areas is deceptive. Misusing data and dressing up rhetoric as fact does a disservice to all schools. Any study should also include an evaluation of the efficacy of various campus models.
B. UNION REPRESENTATION AND MEMBERSHIP SERVICES
●The UFT should facilitate the creation of building level and citywide networks of small schools and host school members so they can share experiences, problems and solutions.
Unfortunately, the placement of small schools into overcrowded larger school buildings has caused tensions among members in the various schools in the building. Many of the teachers in the small schools are new to the profession and to New York City's public schools, and do not have a strong understanding of the role that the UFT can play. Members must recognize that there are common interests among all those working in the building. Networks can provide places where members can share concerns and problems and seek solutions as a union of professionals. These networks can take several different forms. For example, although small schools in a building can share concerns over use of facilities they may have different educational foci or philosophies. In that case, a citywide network of schools with common educational interests could share ideas, including the use of chat rooms and other web-based technologies to do so.
●The UFT should create a network of small-school chapter leaders.
Similar to many members in the newest group of small schools, many chapter leaders are also new both to teaching and to leadership positions in this union. A network of chapter leaders, consisting both of new and experienced small-school chapter leaders, would provide opportunities for sharing of experiences. This network would also be a forum in which chapter leaders could alert the union leaders to issues that they feel are specific to small schools.
●The UFT should sponsor a forum for small school leaders, educators and interested members of the public.
Highly successful UFT forums on literacy, overcrowding, the achievement gap, assessment and math have brought together educators, scholars and researchers to study critical issues, share ideas and explore strategies. A dialogue around the issues related to small schools, especially those related to teaching in small schools, would be an important addition to this forum series and would provide an opportunity to present current thinking on the topic, present a variety of viewpoints, and target areas for action research.
●Select a dedicated staff member to service members in the small schools.
Although many of the issues that face members in small schools are not unique to them, such as salary, personnel or health and welfare issues, others, especially those that are educational in nature, are unique. Appointment of a staff member whose primary function is to service small schools would demonstrate the UFT's commitment to the continued existence of these schools and provide a valuable tool for responding to and building the chapters in these schools, many of which are comprised of members who are new to their union or unfamiliar with the services it offers. A dedicated staff member would also be able to deal directly with the department of education bureaucracy, especially the Office of New Schools that has been established to administer the small schools in the autonomy zone, as well as intermediary organizations, foundations and partners. We have a precedent in the UFT’s creation of a district representative to service District 75/Citywide schools, a decision which helped greatly to strengthen chapters in that far-flung district as well as the appointment of a special representative to service members in alternative schools.
●Mentor small school chapter leaders with experienced small school chapter leaders.
Chapter leaders on the task force, as well as those that responded to the survey noted the often-blatant disregard for the contract that exists in small schools. They need help with not only learning about the contents of the contract but also with learning the leadership skills necessary for dealing with the principal when representing the members and upholding the contract. Many of the small school chapter leaders also need help building chapters that often consist of small numbers of untenured teachers. The presence of partners such as universities, community-based organizations and cultural organizations with whom the chapter leader may have to interact is another area in which chapter leaders need support. In addition to incorporating some of these into the excellent chapter leader training that is currently provided, a mentor system of new small school chapter leaders and experienced small school chapter leaders could build up the knowledge and confidence of new small school chapter leaders.
● In future negotiations, the UFT negotiations committee should explore the creation or modification of contract language to address the needs of members working in small schools.
Issues involving scheduling, assignments, input into professional development and design of the educational program are not unique to small schools but tend to arise often in these schools. This task force recognizes, however, that the creation of contract proposals is beyond its purview. In future negotiations the negotiations committee should give chapter leaders and other members working in small schools an opportunity to provide suggestions to the negotiations committee. This procedure has been used in the past and its most notable example is the negotiation of the school-based option staffing and transfer plan, a direct result of the expressed needs of members in small schools.
CONCLUSION
The UFT anticipated many of the problems caused by the unplanned creation of small schools by the Bloomberg/Klein administration. The December 4, 2002 UFT Delegate Assembly resolution stated our commitment to "encouraging a variety of educational settings for students and staff," but decried the lack of foresight and planning. This continues to be our policy. It is the hope of the task force that the specific recommendations we offer will lead to discussions with all those involved in the creation of new schools and will ensure a process that benefits students and teachers in all our city's public schools.
