Quick Links
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds
District 17 -- my frustration mounts
Yet another interesting charter school with priority for students in districts OTHER than District 17. I don't even want my kid to go to a charter school, but I am angry that this is another school where District 17 families are shafted. http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150306/downtown-brooklyn/more-than-300-kids-apply-for-just-155-spots-new-charter-school
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
IE, does the charter school choose what district it wishes to locate in? Or, is a charter somewhat randomly assigned space in a school within a district?
@xlizellx
So, until D17 and can look as attractive as D13, it will not be able to attract a good looking charter as a mate?
At there any ways in which a desperate district can make itself more attractive to a charter quickly?
(ie. Get the equivalent of a boob job, wear a shorter shirt and fish net stockings?)
Compass was started by some Community Roots teachers hoping to broaden their progressive reach. While that sounds great on the surface, D17 has been making great strides. A progressive charter would simply water down the parent support that is currently mounting at 705 and 316.
Of course there are also principals who are willing to try to work with parents to change the school (316 and 705 might be like this, I have heard various things from people with kids at those schools). I'm just saying that that change might be hard to come by depending on the principal, and even with a willing principal it might not happen as quickly as people would like.
Also, a lot of people (myself included), while otherwise civic- and community-minded, don't have the time or expertise to devote to changing their zoned school. My kid is at a public out-of-district G&T program, but if that hadn't worked out, I would've considered a charter if that was the best available option, even though I don't like charters from an ideological perspective. When the rubber meets the road, I think almost everyone will do what they think is best for their kid rather than what's best for their ideology, and I would never fault anyone for doing that.
Oh also, I think someone asked about getting into charters out of district. Totally do-able but you have to do it from the waitlist which means prolonging the K uncertainty. I know people who got offered spots at Community Roots and Brooklyn Prospect from out of district (also for out of district publics there are frequently spots at 261 - I know a bunch of people got spots from out of district this year during the first week of school).
705 and 316 are different examples. 705 was a brand new school started by a progressive principal hungry for any parental support. 316 is a small school that had declining enrollment. Such a place is much easier to 'move the needle' in terms of parents involvement. 138 is a huge school with high enrollment. They have little need for new blood or new ideas.
I am a parent at PS 9 -- we're very happy there, but as a result of our charter school co-location I have learned a lot about charters, and I keep up on the charter applications in District 13.
I wouldn't get too worked up about the "International Charter." Although they seem to be spinning it as a progressive school for marketing purposes, they were very clear in their application process that they intend to follow Common Core Standards. And that they will do so modeling an approach called Core Knowledge, which is a rote skills and facts-acquisition method that is in place at some low-income schools and positions itself in direct opposition to what most of you would consider to be "progressive."
That said, if you want to go there, you should apply. 300 applications is not that many for 155 seats, and many of those applications are from out of District 13 (they have a map on their website showing where the applications are coming from) and/or from parents who will have applied to multiple schools. For comparison, last year Arts & Letters had something like 475 applications for 50 kindergarten seats, Brooklyn New School almost 1000, PS 9 over 600, etc. With all the new charters in the past 3 years, as well as BNS, PS 133 and Arts & Letters, there are a huge number of "choice" kindergarten seats in our District. And yes, I have heard of many people from out of district getting placements.
About Compass Charter, they actually had a lot of support from D17 parents, but Bloomberg wanted them in D13 and made the space for it in D13 by shrinking an existing school. The conundrum is that progressive charters do not do well on test scores for low-income kids, but test scores is how the charter industry pushes these schools as required for educational reform. Take a look at Community Roots' test scores, or what has happened at Lefferts Garden Charter, to see what I mean. Accordingly, progressive (or progressive-ish) charters are reluctant to locate in districts where they may not get enough affluent students to round out the poor test scores.
So, no, the charter system doesn't necessitate that the community wants the charter, or even that it actually serves the community once it exists. To put it simply, it's not really about you, it's about what the charter people want. Five years ago, there was still a pretense that charters should aim to serve families that were under-served, and should be representative of their district in terms of demographics. But there was never any enforcement of that, and it is clear that the charters are now gunning for affluent families without much concern about the effects. Brooklyn Prospect can open in D13 with a grand total of 9 (out of 75) economically disadvantaged children in a district that where 71% of our schoolchildren are economically disadvantaged and nobody blinks. I have been told that Compass Charter is equally affluent. That kind of disproportionality is absolutely leaving kids behind and it will make it even harder for local schools to develop.
And since the charter facilities law was revised last year, there's no incentive for a charter to locate in less affluent areas. The DOE has to pay a charter's rent wherever it decides to locate. The demographics and geography of D13 make it much more attractive -- affluent D17 families will travel to downtown Brooklyn, but affluent downtown Brooklyn families will not necessarily travel to Crown Heights. And how many kids in truly disadvantaged families are going to take a 45 minute bus ride to get to these brand new schools -- which typically do not have school buses or afterschool in the first year or two. Relatedly, the executive director of a charter school now in D13 told me he could not request to be sited in East New York because his teaching staff would not agree to teach in a school in that area. I couldn't even begin to explain the meaning of that, but perhaps some of that apparent mindset would apply to parts of D17.
I also want to say that I agree with heightsmom that you should be careful what you wish for, and if you at all have any inclination to be involved in something new and promising, please seriously consider any D17 schools that intrigue you. No, it won't work for everyone, but it might work for you. We now have so many charters in D13 that -- even though many of them are filled with kids from out of the district -- there is no space or money for our own D13 students to get new middle schools, which are desperately needed, or for our popular elementary schools to grow.
And as new charters open and are immediately far more affluent than the rest of the schools, they draw more and more resources (of all kinds) away from the public schools. For me, one important consequence of this is that my children may have no real choice EXCEPT charters by the time they get to middle school. I personally would prefer that the DOE have the space, funds and planning latitude to be responsive to district parents and work with us to create a diverse, solid middle school that can teach my kid algebra and truly prepare him for a competitive high school than to have to choose between some watered-down progressive school or a no excuses disciplinary environment. Instead, the DOE is running around being forced to accommodate schools started by Upper East Side dads who are coming to Brooklyn to teach us how to be diverse.
Also want to add: with Cuomo now proposing teacher evals be based 50% (not the current 40%) on assessments and an additional 35% based on 1-time outside observations by non-educators I think traditional, top-down, test-prep programs are just going to expand. Someone who doesn't know teaching thinks quiet rows = more learning that messy debates. And if it means keeping a job or not, it'll have to be done.
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/governor-cuomo-respect?source=s.icn.em.cr&mailing_id=28048&;r_by=12625268&r_by=6248282&;source=s.icn.em.cr
Some parents are presently expressing their unhappiness with PS 289.
quote---
For years, P.S. 289 George V. Brower School, a New York City public school, has been failing the children of Crown Heights. Thankfully many of these kids, mostly low-income African Americans and Latinos, have parents who are deeply concerned and are fighting for change.
Despite social and economic challenges, they find time to speak up for their kids. And just days before the end of this school year, these Crown Heights parents decided enough is enough.
With temperatures soaring past 90 degrees and a thunderstorm brewing, a few dozen parents from P.S. 289 gathered with handmade signs. They were nervous. They held out hope that the principal would somehow come around and listen to their concerns about the lack of quality teaching.
These parents were disenfranchised, familiar with being dismissed and used to being treated as if they were the problem. Their goal was not to embarrass the school in the media but simply to march around the school and deliver a letter of demands. Unfortunately, they were met at the door by notably upset school staff, who insulted the parents and blamed them and their children for the decay of the school.
And then, the school staff called the police.
For quietly and respectfully protesting the quality of teaching and lack of response by the de Blasio administration to a school in ruins, the parents of P.S. 289 were met by the police. This, in a school that has lagged behind other schools in New York City, with just 30 percent proficient in math and only 1 in 4 children reading at grade level.
In a school where many parents say their children are bullied, where they can’t get through on the school’s main phone line, where instruction time has been cut and where the principal has been largely dismissive of parent concerns, the school staff had the audacity to call the police on parents who expressed concern over these issues. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed and no one was arrested.
These parents didn’t just show up one day. They started, nearly a year ago, exploring ways to improve their school. They visited two other New York City public schools that were high-performing, high-minority and high-poverty. They took notes. They talked with principals and school staff who greeted them with respect and humility. They, the parents of P.S. 289, were interested in helping the school. They sat with the principal, who assured them that he would try to restore their faith in the school.
The parents, whose children are assigned to a school that is historically and persistently underperforming, wanted better outcomes for their children. They wanted computers and books. They wanted displays of artwork in the hallways.
They wanted teachers to be held accountable for the successes and failures of each student. They wanted progress reports so they could better understand how to help their children. They wanted the class time to increase. They wanted high expectations for their kids.
They wanted their children to be in schools that valued them and their safety. They wanted the same thing every parent wants for their child, regardless of race, class or zip code—a quality education.
All of us who work in public education should welcome committed, involved parents like the ones from P.S. 289, and yet they have been harassed by staff, kicked out of PTA meetings for speaking up, whisked away from auditoriums, hung up on by school staff, blown off by the superintendent and met by the police.
This administration prides itself on tolerance and acceptance. The parents of P.S. 289 are asking for nothing less.
I hope their concerns will be heard. I hope that their requests, big and small, will be met with viable solutions. Above all, I hope that the parents of P.S. 289—Jonathan and Xiomara, Cheryl and Jeanette, Angelette and Shannon—will finally get the quality education that every parent wants and every child needs.
http://educationpost.org/these-nyc-parents-say-enough-is-enough/
....after all, charter schools usually have far superior physical plants.
As a result, their goal is not to recruit people who want to improve public schools, it is to find committed, educated parents who are ready to defect to charters.
fun fact: tenicka boyd, the students first employee who wrote that blog post, is a PS 321 parent. yes.
interestingly, the charter school that was the initial subject of this post failed to fill its first grade seats during its lottery. I can imagine many reasons why that could have happened, but it is notable. do you think they may have "forgotten" to send their glossy brochures to the 11213 zip code?