REPORT OF THE

UNITED FEDERATION OFTEACHERS

SMALL SCHOOL TASK FORCE

MAY 2005

Co-chairs

Joseph CollettiPeter Goodman

School-based

Mary AtkinsonBob DehlerSal EmanueleMichael FriedmanCurt GleesonDavid GribbenJohn JanceBob McCueLedia Mara-DritaJonathan MolofskyMichelle MorrisseyNoah SmithJohn Starkey

Officers and Staff

Leo CaseyRona FreiserGentile, AmindaFran StreichFrank VolpicellaLynn Windebaum

Staff Support

Maisie McAdoo

MembersUFT Small School Task Force

Special Representative for Educational ProgramsLiaison: Small School Support Network

High School for Health Careers and the SciencesSeward Park High SchoolJHS 168QOffsite Educational ServicesManhattan Theater Lab SchoolBronx International High SchoolHarry Van Arsdale High SchoolPark West High School CampusQueens High School for TechnologyU.F.T. Teacher Center SpecialistTeacher's Preparatory SchoolBrooklyn Academy for Science and the EnvironmentInternational High School@LaGuardia College

Special RepresentativeRepresentative, Queens High SchoolsVice PresidentCommunity Liaison, BrooklynVice President, Academic High SchoolsRepresentative, Bronx High Schools

Senior Research Associate

Small School Task Force ReportMay 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:

2

61 Teachers and school leaders have common planning time;

G School leaders develop a disciplined, collaborative school culture;

e Teachers and students have many opportunities to know each other well;

III Teachers monitor student performance and adjust instruction accordingly;

e Teachers are supported in exercising their professional judgment;

@ There is accessible instructional expertise in the building;

5 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, paren~s, 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.

---_._--_ ..._---.-. -

3

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 arid 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

4

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.

ABRIEF HISTORY

In the 1970s, the small school rriovement 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 "r:

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

conununities to prepare students to face new demands, technologies and job markets in a global

5

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:

III personalized "student-centered" environments;

e 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.

---- ------ ------- -----

6

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 Apri11992, 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

7

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,

8

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.

9

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 ifthey 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.

10

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

11

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

12

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 anyone 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 anadverse 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 LJFT Delegate Assembly passed a December 4,2002 resolution that called fora

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.

.. --------- ~-.----.-..-.---

13

'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

basedon 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 ofthe 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

14

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.

e Many respondents recommended specific meetings for small school chapter leaders.

e 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

15

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.

e 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, alongwith 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

eThe 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

16

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 ofthe 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.

e The Department of Education must s~~le the number of new small schools it creates to the

capacity oj 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.

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

17

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 thebeginning 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.

«l 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.

e There must be an equal distribution of resources, repairs and services to all schools in a

building, including those that are phasing out.

18

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.

e 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.

QiI 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 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

---.----------~----

19

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 efait accompli, rather than as an opportunity for

discussion and possible involvement of these stakeholders in final decisions.

Ii 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 benefi ts of both large

and small schools should continue to be explored with the department.

fI 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 smati schools.

The Mayor and Chancellor have touted the achievements of small schools, but there has been

little or no objective public evaluation ofthe 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 onselective results

from one entering class after one year of performance in only one or two areas is deceptive.

20

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 UFI 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 strongunderstanding 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.

Ell 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 UPT 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

-------~--.- ..-.. -'-.~.-

21

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 demonstratethe 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 ofthe 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 tbe 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.

22

*The UFT negotiations committee should explore.the creation or modification of existing

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 more often. Members in the

small schools look to the UFT to provide the flexibility in many areas that might go beyond the

existing school-based option clauses of the contract. The school-based contract proposal that the

UFT has put forth should continue to be a priority for this union as that could address many of

the issues. This task force recognizes, however, that the creation of specific modifications is

beyond its purview, though 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 forcethat 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.

---_. -.---------------~