First Person

Don’t Smile ‘Til Christmas

That’s a popular saying. Basically, it means you’ve got to get tough with the kids when they first see you, and stay that way for a good long time. After all, every parent knows it’s the sacred duty of every kid to test every adult every minute to find out precisely what can be gotten away with.

I’m up to the challenge. On the first day of class, I might phone the homes of every kid who looked at me the wrong way. Doubtless that will be the talk of the classroom. “This teacher is crazy!” That’s music to my ears. They prevailing platitude states a good lesson plan is the single best factor in classroom control, but I’d say a bad reputation trumps the good lesson plan every time. After all, if the kids are tying you to a post and setting fire to it, your excellent lesson plan is likely to go up in flames with you, no matter how good the instructional objective may be, or how much praise it’s garnered from your supervisor.

Actually, I like kids a lot — working with them is by far the single best part of being a teacher. As an ESL teacher, drawing them out and making them comfortable enough to speak freely is a major part of what my job entails. So, much as we all treasure peace and quiet, I don’t have the luxury of simply telling them to sit down and shut up the entire year. Nor would I want it — I don’t think I’d like that any more than the kids would.

Once kids know who I am, and what I will and will not tolerate, they have a lot of freedom in my class. As long as they do the work, they can speak out and complain about the class (or even the teacher) as much as they like. I don’t mind. I can give as good as I get, for the most part, and kids who can out-talk me, even on an occasional basis, very much deserve extra credit. In fact, such kids have gone above and beyond what can reasonably be expected of newcomers.

But this year is a little different. Francis Lewis is, supposedly, annualized, meaning while class levels change, kids spend a year with any given teacher. But there are frequent exceptions. Most of my level-one kids proved to be what we call “false beginners,” meaning they had significant passive knowledge, and a huge head start over my real beginners.

Actually, despite what the 100% infallible state and city tests may have suggested, I’d have classified most of them as level two. Of course, I only saw them and their writing every working day of my life. That’s certainly not the same as knowing whether they’d blacked in A, B, C or D on standardized tests for 30 minutes on a single day when they may or may not have eaten breakfast, stayed up all night, or taken a family member to the hospital.

As new kids walk into my classroom, I ask them what’s your name, where are you from, and how long have you been here. In advanced classes, I’ve frequently encountered kids who were stumped at the first two questions. Yet they filled in the right circles, the state had spoken, and that was pretty much it. What’s the difference if they understand nothing? The test says they’re advanced, and that ought to be good enough for anyone.

Differentiating instruction is all well and good, but this year was a very tough balancing act trying to address the needs of two distinct groups that most definitely did not belong together. Whether or not you believe in learning styles, it went well beyond that. I’m afraid, though I specifically went back to square one at least twice in an effort to reach the beginners, I was more effective reaching the majority — in this case, the higher group.

This month we were able to remedy that, for the most part. I kept the false beginners and the rest joined another class, with kids at a similar level. But now, about one-third of my class is new, and I’m being tested all over again. This puts me in the unfortunate position of having to roll back the liberties of kids who know me well, who have certain expectations of me and what they can get away with.

So how do you go back to not smiling when most of your kids know very well it’s one of your favorite things to do? It’s generally believed that once you smile there’s just no taking it back. This may be true, but I’ve got a plan.

I’m going to try selecting a few of the most talkative and influential students who’ve been with me since September, pulling them out of their classes, and explaining what I’m doing and why I’m doing it. Hopefully they’ll understand. They are pretty smart kids.

If I can get them on my side, maybe they’ll encourage the new kids to get with the program. After all, they want their freedom back, and that’s the quickest way to get it.

In fact, that’s exactly what I’ll tell them on Monday. Wish me luck.

First Person

What I learned about the limits of school choice in New York City from a mother whose child uses a wheelchair

PHOTO: Patrick Wall

As a researcher interested in the ways online platforms impact learning and educational decision-making, I’ve been trying to understand how New York City parents get the information to make a crucial decision: where to send their children to school.

So for the past six months, I’ve been asking local parents about the data they used to choose among the system’s 1700 or so schools.

I’ve heard all sorts of stories about the factors parents weigh when picking schools. Beyond the usual considerations like test scores and art programs, they also consider the logistics of commuting from the Bronx to the East Village with two children in tow, whether the school can accommodate parents and children who are still learning English, and how much money the parent-teacher association raises to supplement the school’s budget.

But for some families, the choice process begins and ends with the question: Is the building fully accessible?

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act requires public buildings constructed after 1992 to be fully accessible to people in wheelchairs. However, most New York City public school buildings were constructed prior to that law, and high construction costs have limited the number of new, fully accessible buildings.

As a result, a shocking 83 percent of New York City schools have been found non-compliant with the ADA, according to a two-year federal Department of Justice investigation whose findings the city Department of Education largely disputes. Recently, the city’s Office of Space Management has begun surveying buildings for full accessibility, but more work remains to be done.

One parent’s struggle to find a school suitable for her son, who has a physical disability but no cognitive issues, illustrates what a major role accessibility plays in some families’ decision-making.

Melanie Rivera is the mother of two and a native New Yorker living in Ditmas Park in Brooklyn’s District 22 who shared her story with me — and gave me permission to share it with others. Here is what she told me, in her own words:

My son Gabriel is seven years old. He was born with a condition called arthrogryposis, which affects the development of his joints. His hips, knees, and feet are affected and he has joint contractures, so his legs don’t bend and straighten the way most people’s do. In order to get around, he uses a combination of crutches and a wheelchair.

Before I had my differently-abled son, I was working in a preschool for children with special needs. The kids I worked with had cognitive developmental disabilities.

Despite my professional experience, I was overwhelmed when it was my turn to help my child with different abilities navigate the public school system. I can only imagine the students falling by the wayside because their parents don’t have that background.

When I was completing my son’s kindergarten application, I couldn’t even consider the academics of the school. My main priority was to tour the schools and assess their level of accessibility.

There are only a couple of ADA-accessible schools in my district, and there was no way of indicating on my son’s kindergarten application that he needed one. When we got the admissions results, he was assigned to his zoned school – which is not accessible.

I entered lengthy and extensive mediation to get him into an ADA-accessible school. At that point, I knew I would just have to take what I could get. For families whose children have special needs, “school choice” can ring hollow.

The process of finding any accessible school was a challenge. The DOE website allows families to search for ADA-accessible schools. But the site describes most schools as “partially accessible,” leaving it up to parents to call each school and say, “What do you mean by this?”

When I called the schools and asked, “Are you a barrier-free school?” the staff in the office didn’t know what the term meant. They might reply, “Oh yeah, we have a ramp.” I’d have to press further: “But can you get to the office? Can you get to every floor in the building?” The response was often, “Oh, I don’t know.”

Even the office staff didn’t know. But for my son’s sake, I needed to know.

Gabriel deserves the full range of academic and social experiences. So every day I make sure he’s learning in the least-restrictive environment — from the classroom, to phys ed, to field trips.

I believe the Department of Education also wants to make schools accessible and to place students with different abilities in settings where they’ll flourish, but the current system is not equipped to follow through on those good intentions. While I see gradual changes, I still know that if I don’t find the best placement for my son the system definitely won’t.

At the school level, administrators should know the details of their own school’s accessibility. Teachers should learn to include children with different abilities in their classrooms. Such a commitment means recognizing the value of inclusivity — not viewing accessibility as something ADA says you must do.

Before I had Gabriel, I never thought about accessibility. I never looked at street cutouts or thought about how to enter a store with steps. We’re probably all guilty of perpetuating exclusion at one point or another.

Recognizing that will allow us to change the status quo. It will allow every individual with a physical disability to fully participate in the public school system.

Claire Fontaine is a researcher at Data & Society, a research institute in New York City focused on social, cultural, and ethical issues arising from technological development. Kinjal Dave is a research assistant at Data & Society. You can read more about their project, which seeks to better understand the ways in which diverse New York City parents draw on school performance data, online dashboards, and school review websites when researching schools for their children.

First Person

I covered Tennessee’s ed beat for Chalkbeat. Here’s what I learned.

PHOTO: Marta W. Aldrich
Grace Tatter covers a press conference at the Tennessee State Capitol in 2015.

For three years, I covered the Statehouse for Chalkbeat Tennessee, reporting on how policies from Nashville trickled down into more than 1,800 public schools across the state.

Now I’m starting back to school myself, pursuing graduate studies aimed at helping me to become a better education journalist. I’m taking with me six things I learned on the job about public education in Tennessee.

1. Apathy is often cited as a major problem facing education. That’s not the case in Tennessee.

I heard from hundreds of parents, educators, and students who were passionate about what’s happening — good and bad — inside of schools. I covered crowded school board meetings and regularly scrambled for an open seat at legislative hearings where parents had filled the room after driving since dawn to beat the opening gavel. Not incidentally, those parents usually came from communities with the “worst” schools and the lowest test scores. While many disagreements exist about the best way to run schools, there is no shortage of people, particularly parents and educators, who care.

2. Tennessee has one of the most fascinating education stories in America.

I’ve had a front-row seat to massive changes in K-12 education under reforms ushered in by Race to the Top — an overhaul being tracked closely well beyond the state’s borders. But the national interest and import doesn’t end with changes stemming from the $500 million federal award. Tennessee is home to some of the nation’s premier education researchers, making its classrooms laboratories for new ideas about pre-K, school turnaround, and literacy instruction, just to name a few. And at the legislature, more lobbyists are devoted to education than to most any other cause. A lot of eyes are on Tennessee schools.

3. The education community is not as divided as it looks.

During the course of just a few years, I watched state lawmakers change their positions on accountability and school vouchers. I witnessed “anti-charter” activists praise charter leaders for their work. I chronicled task force meetings where state leaders who were committed to standardized testing found middle ground with classroom educators concerned that it’s gone too far. In short, a lot of people listened to each other and changed their minds. Watching such consensus-building reminded me that, while there are no simple debates about education, there is a widespread commitment to making it better.

4. Money matters.

Even when stories don’t seem to be about money, they usually are. How much money is being spent on testing, teacher salaries, school discipline reform? How much should be available for wraparound services? Why do some schools have more money than others? Is there enough to go around? Tennessee leaders have steadily upped public education spending, but the state still invests less than most other states, and the disparities among districts are gaping. That’s why more than a handful of school districts are battling with the state in court. Conversations about money are inextricable from conversations about improving schools.

5. Race is a significant education issue, but few leaders are willing to have that conversation.

More than 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, Tennessee’s schools are largely racially segregated. Yet most policymakers tread lightly, if ever, into conversations about achieving real racial integration. And in many cases — such as a 2011 law enabling mostly white suburban Shelby County towns to secede from the mostly black Memphis district — they’ve actually gone backwards. Then there’s the achievement data. The annual release of test scores unleashes a flurry of conversation around the racial achievement gap. But the other 11 months of the year, I heard little about whether state and local policies are closing those gaps — or contributing to them — or the historical reasons why the gaps exist in the first place. To be sure, state leadership is trying to address some of Tennessee’s shortcomings. For example, the State Department of Education has launched modestly funded initiatives to recruit more teachers of color. But often, race and racism are the elephants in the room.

6. Still, there’s lots to celebrate.

If there were unlimited hours in the day, I could have written thousands of stories about what’s going right in public education. Every day, I received story ideas about collaborations with NASA in Oak Ridge, high school trips to Europe from Memphis, gourmet school lunches in Tullahoma, and learning partnerships with the Nashville Zoo. Even in schools with the steepest challenges, they were stories that inspire happiness and hope. They certainly inspired me.

Grace Tatter graduated from public schools in Winston-Salem, N.C., and received her bachelor’s degree in history from the University of North Carolina. She’s now pursuing a master’s degree in specialized studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.