By Andrew Chu
“That’s the letter A!”
My four and a half year-old son raised his closed fist with his palm facing out. “The letter A,” he repeated.
We were on the third floor of the Whitney Museum and straight ahead of us was a poignant black and white photo collage of Civil Rights protestors. My son had just started learning sign language in his pre-K class at P.S. 191. Through his eyes, the diverse men and women raising their fists before us were each signing the letter A.
Not ever having learned sign language, I would have missed this connection completely had my son not pointed it out. He had just taught me a new way of looking at the world.
We owed this and other moments of discovery like it to my son’s caring teachers at P.S. 191. They have created a safe and welcoming classroom shared by children from a variety of backgrounds, including many who are from first generation families from Europe and Asia. By learning together, whether it be sign language, storytelling or multicultural music and dance, my son and his classmates have made valuable connections between cultures, concepts and, perhaps most critically, between each other.
These are just some of the reasons why, despite only being a parent at the school for three months, I felt compelled to serve as Co-Chair of PS 191’s School Leadership Team. As Co-Chair, I know that, in the context of the broader rezoning, the work that Principal Lauren Keville, Assistant Principal Sandra Perez and the entire 191 staff is doing has taken on an extra level of scrutiny and emphasis.
And I am extremely proud to say that this effort is starting to pay off.
Through each member’s contribution, whether it be teaching, volunteering or leading, we are building a school that will make the entire Upper West Side proud. We envision a school where a uniquely diverse student body comes together to learn through invention, through art and through each other. With our successful push to launch a new STEAM/Maker program (combining Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math) next Fall, we aspire to not only have our children learn together, but also to *build* together, gaining the crucial collaborative problem-solving skills they will need to succeed in an increasingly innovative world. By combining the power of invention with our existing strengths in the performing arts, we aim to be an exceptional institution where students of all backgrounds can dream big, think positive and do the incredible.
With these goals in mind, we take no benefit for granted. In particular, we are humbled to have so many leaders and members in the broader community giving their time, energy and resources to help bring this vision to life. These include:
- City officials and volunteers facilitating our move in Fall 2017 to a brand new state-of-the-art school building at 61st street and West End Ave
- City Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal supporting a historic rezoning that lays a strong foundation for our future as well as committing funds for a pivotal STEAM/Maker pilot that will launch this January 2017
- State Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer providing essential capital resources to create a dedicated FabLab/workshop for an expanded STEAM/Maker program in the new building, complete with 3d printers and other cutting edge hardware
- The Department of Education supporting a new Gifted and Talented program based on teacher recommendations and other criteria to be launched for the 3rd grade next year
- Neighborhood cultural institutions like Lincoln Center, the Juilliard School and Alvin Ailey continuing to offer unique partnerships around the performing arts
With the rezoning decision behind us, this incredible cross-section of our community has come together to support 191 as well as other newly zoned schools in District 3. And while this list makes an incredibly positive statement regarding the character of District 3, it is far from complete. It is still missing one absolutely critical individual.
You.
We welcome you to be a part of our journey and to contribute in whatever way you can.
Whether you know a great after-school program, you are passionate about Maker/STEAM and the arts or you just want to volunteer or donate, we would love to hear from you.
If you are in our neighborhood, please consider visiting us and seeing the school for yourself. We hold parent tours every Wednesday morning at 8:45am. If you have a question, please give us a call at 212-757-4343.
2016 brought change to us whether we anticipated it or not. As we look to 2017 and the potential a new year brings, we open the door to countless new perspectives on the world, for our children and for ourselves.
These new perspectives can shape our vision as to what is possible, illuminating collective blind spots that have long been obscured by decades of accrued notions. These expanded outlooks can fuel our imaginations, not only inspiring us to do the unprecedented, but also revealing to us how to get there.
As a parent of 191, I am absolutely grateful for the opportunity I have been given to help build this school. It has revealed to me what is possible when we dream together and build together. It is something I wish my son learns himself someday as a part of this community.
And it all can simply start with learning the letter A.
Thank you all, best wishes and Happy New Year,
Andrew Chu
Co-Chair of the P.S. 191 School Leadership Team
“City Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal supporting a historic rezoning that lays a strong foundation for our future”
just couldn’t get past that
what public schools did Helen’s children go to?
One went to PS 33
the other went to PS 47
so…what’s the point?
Doobs are us, where did you get this information? My understanding is that both of her daughters went to Brearly. And the point is that a limosine liberal, who lives in a 7+ million dollar apartment and whose daughters went to one of the most elite private schools in manhattan, is dictating the future education for the middle class.
I have it on good authority, she does not ride in a limo
”’Limousine liberal”’ and ”’latte liberal”’ are prejorative American political terms used to illustrate perceived hypocrisy by a political liberal of upper class or upper middle class status … “Lexus liberal” is a variant of the term, used to describe an upper middle class individual who supports the same ideas of limousine liberals, but is still out-of-touch with the actual poor they purport to care for. The term “Lexus” is used as these liberals are wealthy enough to afford a luxury car or high end vehicle, such as the Lexus” — Wikipedia
I don’t think anyone takes the term “limousine liberal” literally–just stands for the general idea of hypocrisy. But I’m happy to change my term to “Lexus liberal” if you need to be exact.
where did you see that she is a limousine liberal? Please show evidence that:
a) she indeed rides in a limousine on a regular basis such that she would be referred as such.
b)she uses no other means of transport.
That’s a funny one….we all know they went to private school.
Helen Rosenthal is a complete phony. Absolutely the worst of the worst.
hello dannyboy, as someone who lives in a rezoned building and whose son will be in the first class to be impacted, I can certainly empathize with anyone who was frustrated about the rezoning process. Beyond that, I also believe we all have a choice as to how to deal with this frustration. Not getting past it is one option, but I can only hope there are other parents out there who may consider more constructive means of moving forward.
hello andrew c, as someone with grown children who attended the local schools before they became a political football, i find myself very disappointed with the lack of honesty in the rezoning process.
i know you prefer “more constructive means of moving forward”, but isn’t that the same bs that our government used to justify not holding anyone responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis?
If everyone just wants to just believe that this was clean, please do. But don’t expect me to swallow Helen Rosenthal’s betrayals and the whole rezoning baloney as honest.
During the summer, I sat in a room with the esteemed councilwoman and parents impacted by the rezoning. She was directly asked if she would take a position on the rezoning.
Her response was that rezoning was something that should be determined by parents and not politicians so she would not take a position.
Funny how the CEC comes out with it’s “plan” and then the councilwoman is running all over the UWS speaking about how wonderful the plan is and throwing her support behind it. She even went so far to say that if you were against the plan, you were against diversity, i.e. a racist.
Simply amazing.
dannyboy,
I hear you. As you may recall, I was one of the most vocal critics of last year’s rezoning proposal (ironically, with an op-ed last year here on WSR). This year, apart from a few comments, I was largely absent. This isn’t because I implicitly trusted the process per se, but b/c I personally felt the guiding principles underlying this year’s proposal were far more sound than last year’s. So, despite the fact that I am one of the families who is, in theory, most negatively impacted, I still could not in good conscience raise opposition purely based on issues around process. I guess my perspective is if you view this year’s process as an extension of last year’s failed process, our collective voices were definitely heard. One need only look visually at this year’s map vs last year’s to confirm that. So, when I speak to moving on constructively, what I mean is not necessarily to ignore all that is not sound, but effectively to pick our battles. For me, the battle far more worth my while is, “how do you turn one good school into two or three good schools?”. The proposal this year does not in itself solve this but it lays the groundwork, it moves the chains to borrow a football analogy. Whatever the process to get there, I prefer to focus on this single question of improving schools b/c I feel it is the most positive expenditure of my finite energies. Others may choose to allocate their energies differently which I certainly respect.
dannyboy,
I think you mistake where my hope is placed. Any dysfunction you or I observed is all the more reason to get involved and to help shape the outcome ourselves.
“On the point of trust, again understand completely. One thing I will say is you don’t necessarily have to trust all stakeholders if you understand their incentives. Part of what makes this an aforementioned once in a lifetime opportunity is you have a the rarest of scenarios where multiple typically divergent incentives are coming into alignment. Everyone has a vested interest in making this work because the alternative is comparatively disastrous (i.e. do nothing)
So, to me, a logical conclusion is actually the opposite of yours interestingly.” – andrew c
I had a very clear understanding of the CEC and DOE incentives. It became crystal clear when, at the invitation of the Zoning Committee, I joined their working group (I am Chairman of a multi-national educational organization). Once “inside”, I began seeing things that were a surprise: NO data for analysis. Rezoning requires data, otherwise it is just a political decision. Rather than analyze the Committee chose to run out the clock with a “Study” of Controlled Choice. That alternative wasn’t even feasible in the decision timeframe. I balked.
“Doing nothing” was not the only alternative, and I think you know that. Getting the DOE to approve the CEC Plan was a simple matter, as the DOE wanted to avoid last year’s disaster.
I know you are trying to be hopeful. But I am not naive.
Your thoughtful voice is refreshing. Please run for public office soon. Preferably U.S. President. Much needed.
Carlos,
Thanks for the comment. While we do not have a position on the re-siting of 452, I will say we are more than happy to work closely with 452 going forward and share some of the initiatives and resources we are creating for next Fall. We are neighbors after all and part of the big puzzle is how to create a sustainable ecosystem of 3 neighboring public schools. That benefits everyone.
Dannyboy and Sara,
The process is the outcome… this is true, the process is important. For those parents where this is the deciding factor in their consideration of our school, we are obviously disappointed but we understand. Our hope is to reach out to other parents who are still looking for information and maintaining an open mind as to their options. I believe 191 at this juncture represents a once in a lifetime educational opportunity for the families in this community. I’m happy to make the case to anyone who is willing to listen.
On the point of trust, again understand completely. One thing I will say is you don’t necessarily have to trust all stakeholders if you understand their incentives. Part of what makes this an aforementioned once in a lifetime opportunity is you have a the rarest of scenarios where multiple typically divergent incentives are coming into alignment. Everyone has a vested interest in making this work because the alternative is comparatively disastrous (i.e. do nothing)
So, to me, a logical conclusion is actually the opposite of yours interestingly. From my perspective, the DOE has every motivation to make sure 191 as well as the broader rezoning is as successful as possible in the long term.
I completely agree with Danny boy that the process is the outcome. You are doing great things, Andrew, and your type of energy has the potential to change the school. The problem is that, the way this process took place is going to discourage others from putting their trust in the DOE in order to follow your lead–and, unfortunately, because of this process, most will not.
andrew c,
“I still could not in good conscience raise opposition purely based on issues around process.” – I do, because the CEC hijacked the process with its “Midnight Letter to the DOE”. All public discussion was moot. Holding Public Hearings AFTER the Plan has been sent seems more like the USSR than the UWS.
“I guess my perspective is if you view this year’s process as an extension of last year’s failed process, our collective voices were definitely heard.” – My voice should have been heard, but the diversionary tactics of having each Meeting discussion be different than scheduled, having a Lobbyist MANAGE the whole matter, by working the politicians, working the press, working the Parents Associations, holding school presentations to lobby support EXCLUDED my voice.
“Whatever the process to get there, I prefer to focus on this single question of improving schools b/c I feel it is the most positive expenditure of my finite energies.” – The Process IS the Outcome. Not for one minute do I believe that these dirty tricks will not affect the entire school community.
I care very much about our community. This is no way for my neighbors to be treated.
Good luck.
I think that the way the lower schools in the zone were split was generally a good solution. Certain small groups are not happy (such as some Lincoln Towers residents) but it was impossible to make it perfect for all.
My biggest beef is that in the process of improving the situation at the southern end of the District, the residents of the mid-upper 70s and lower 80s were collateral damage. A material number of PS 452 families were very unhappy with having to now travel much further to school. Once these kids work their way through the system this problem will be gone, but this is a non-trivial number of families being impacted for the next five years. Similarly, the already crowded PS 87 is likely to become even more crowded, so a few years from now we might be revisiting this exercise, which is not optimal.
Some might reasonably argue that the inconvenience to those at PS 452 and PS 87 is a worthwhile tradeoff to improve outcomes at other schools and help with diversity, but I would like to think that there was a better solution. I am really hoping that these changes result in improvement and/or status quo for all, rather than weak schools get marginally better and good schools get weaker and we regress to the mean.
I admire Mr Chu’s commitment to PS 191 and his enthusiasm for the school.
But his son is in the pre-K program at 191 which everyone agrees is doing a pretty good job.
I wonder how many of the parents of pre-K kids allow their kids to continue at 191 once pre-K is over.
Hi Sherman,
That is the big question. What gives me confidence that there will be a change is some of the positive feedback we have already received thus far from potential parents around the initiatives we are working on. For example, in addition to the above, one thing I would love to implement is Mandarin Chinese starting in early childhood and potentially growing from there.
I think people are potentially underestimating the opportunity here to fundamentally shape the education of their child in ways that were not previously possible. Furthermore, the change that is possible here is in itself an extremely unique educational experience, one that can’t be found in any book.
But everyone needs to make the best decision for their child. All we can do is make the best case we can and work hard as heck to position the school for growth.
Thanks.
Hi Andrew
I’m a dad of a 199 kid. He loves the school and he’s thriving there.
Even though I have no connection to 191 I wish you much success in reshaping the school and I hope your son has a great experience there.
Sherm
awesome, appreciate the support Sherman. Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.
Way to lay it on thick with the Civil Rights metaphor there.
Don’t worry – We “get it”
SMH…
Hello FECP,
I get that speaking just from a point of social justice doesn’t resonate for all. Realistically, the more fundamental question is “what’s in it for me and my child?”
Fortunately, I don’t view this simply from the lens of its social impact, although that is a huge benefit. I see it as an opportunity to help redefine what an “excellent education” is.
As President Obama said at the first official Maker Faire in the White House in 2014, “we need Making to help address our nation’s most pressing issues.”
Making/STEAM is one way to track the growth of our children without relying solely on a numeric output. Instead of becoming statistics, our children can become inventors, designers and artists.
Furthermore, although the civil rights movement seems to be cliché to you at this point I will say this. Many people have spoken to the importance of integrating our schools. Not as many have had success figuring out the best way to integrate our schools. If this initiative and this school has the potential to bring a diverse group of kids together to build amazing things and to learn from each other, then that would, at least for me, be the furthest thing from cliché there is, it would be unprecedented.
Well said.
I admire the writer’s passion. Now PS 191 needs to clone him and create a large number of parents who will be actively involved in the school, who will take their kids to museums on the weekend, and ideally have been making education their top priority since their children were born so that kids enter the school ready to learn.
Unfortunately, this has not historically been the case at PS 191 – this is not a classist remark or a racist remark, it is just a fact proven by the test scores. A school can have the best teachers in the world, but if the students and parents don’t buy in, it doesn’t help. Mr. Chu is an example of buy in and hopefully others will follow up. I am rooting for PS 191 to succeed.
Our child attended the pre-k program in the past and we were very impressed. We are zoned for 199 so we did make that switch at kindergarten (as the commenter above pointed out). But if we had been zoned to stay, we likely would have. Now that zone lines have changed, my guess is that a lot of parents will try it out. The new building looks amazing, the student body is changing, there is a new principal who’s made a lot of changes, etc.. I think most new parents will be pleasantly surprised next year.
In my humble opinion, I believe that in the long term PS 191 will be the most successful of the schools in the southern portion of district 3 (and I believe the DOE and CEC are setting it up that way). I believe that 199 will take a step backwards, but not a large one. I think the relocated 452 is going to struggle and I’m not sure how it will turn out
I think it’s GREAT that the CEC and DOE are backing 191. But I’m still not clear why they felt the need to re-site 452 in the process. I predict that, in hindsight, moving 452 will prove to be a mistake.
Completely admire the author’s dedication. The training process was corrupt and unfair but we have to do something. Even before rezoninng when PS 191 was not a focus in this district, it needed enthusiasm and dedication Andrew is writing about.
I don’t agree with a few comments though (not Andrew C’s) that parent involvement is everything. It shouldn’t be everything, it is very helpful of course, but teachers and DOE should set standards and provide help to weaker students. It is not about lack of parental involvement; it is parents not setting a good example of work ethics or behavior and that can’t be helped. Children of such parents are left behind by schools which shouldn’t be the case. If everything is up to the parents, we might as well abandon public school system and go with home schooling.
I am always fascinated by the fact that parents use the excuse of having to go further to get to school as a reason not to change the zoning. Then attack Rosenthal for sending children to private school. Children in private schools travel all over the city to get to their schools and are privileged to do it. Since when is proximity synonymous with a good education?
This is comparing apples to oranges. If the councilwoman chooses to and has the means to send her children to private school, that is her choice, but most families who chose to send their children to public school do not have this option — and yes, may have real reasons for needing their children to go to local schools. The move of 452 is particularly egregious. It is likely that the councilwoman means well but simply cannot understand this struggle since her life and financial means are so far removed from it.
hi anon,
i know this is treacherous waters b/c I don’t want to speak on helen’s behalf, but what the heck.
If I had to venture a guess, i think your comment on some families not having a choice as to their local school is actually an argument in favor of helen’s position. Aside from 452, there has been generations of families in residences like the Amsterdam houses that have not had a choice of a strong local school either.
I think the broader picture here is to try to address the issue of how to create multiple great schools for broad swaths of our community rather than just pockets of it. Never been solved before as far as I know. If this is one avenue to achieve that then I guess Helen thought that was worth the political risk.
On the private vs public. Another reason i am so motivated around this is exactly that dichotomy. Why *do* we have to decide between struggling public, strong but overcrowded public or exceptional but incredibly expensive private schools? Again, if this initiative works and in any way can serve as a template to resolve similar issues around the city, then perhaps there is a point in time down the road where we won’t have to face these starkly limiting options.
Andrew, Thank you for your commitment and dedication to our children’s education and our community. It is deeply inspiring and very welcome!
Thank you so much! I am just one parent at the end of the day. Every incremental parent who gets involved or lends their support subsequently magnifies our efforts. It’s really been one of the most rewarding things I have participated in in my life. I’m very grateful.
More liberal yaketyak about the glories of multiculturalism, diversity, and “the arts.” All very inspirational and heart/warming, but the big question is this……..Will those graduating from the school be able to read at grade level? Will they be prepared to successfully meet the rigorous academic challenges of middle school and high school? Will they know how to properly punctuate a sentence? Will they be able to make use of cursive writing? Will they know what happened in 1492? Will they know who Franklin Roosevelt was? In short, will they have the knowledge that generations before them had when they moved from grade school to upper school? Or will their knowledge be limited to these liberal artsy farts “feel good” ideas that are designed to have children l”like” school? Getting. Good education can often be pure drudgery, but it is designed to make one an intelligent individual, with a storehouse of knowledge!
“Educating is what someone does to you. Learning is what you do for yourself.”
– Joi Ito, Director of the MIT Media Lab
David,
The best chance these students you are challenging to “make the grade” have is to learn in a more balanced and integrated school rather than one with concentrated poverty. Studies confirm this as essentially fact.
If maker and the “arts” is one way to achieve this by differentiating the school and making it more attractive to new families, then the answers to all of your questions are decidedly yes.
Furthermore, this may be hard to hear, but your paradigm for a properly educated individual as a “storehouse of knowledge” is outdated and becoming increasingly outdated with each passing day.
What is the value of being a storehouse of knowledge when any individual on the planet with an average smartphone can answer any of the questions you posed?
No. The measure of a truly exceptional individual going forward is not one defined in the context of information but rather *innovation*.
Innovation requires the ability to connect disparate disciplines, see relationships where others may not and to leverage networks of expertise and information rather than double down on becoming silos of information. It is the antithesis of being a “storehouse.” Interestingly, each of the aforementioned skills is a potential benefit that one receives from Making and combining liberal yaketyak (sp) with the sciences.
Now, having the means to communicate properly and an understanding of historical context is important. But it’s not the end, it is simply the means, a way to frame and inform an individual’s pursuit of creative work. Speaking of generations past, I think there has been an unfortunate connotation for “creativity” and the “arts” as being less worthwhile that you unfortunately appear to share. When I speak of creativity, I don’t limit myself to these prior definitions. Coding is a means of expression, as is design and as is woodwork. What is more crucial than the means of expression is the connection that that individual has to the work.
When they are truly engaged in what they do, they lose track of time and become engrossed in their work. If this is defined as “liking” what they do, so be it. My greatest hope is that our school can inspire its students to “like” what they do in this exact manner. That combined with the ability to navigate information rather than simply memorize it will give them the most exceptional and necessary education for the future.
Andrew, thank you for all the work you are putting into this school. No one would would disagree with a fair education for all, and your passion and ideas do have the potential to change the school…
Now it is time for the DOE to step up and to start thinking outside of the box in order to attract more students. Lauren Keville has great programming she is developing, but she has said herself that it will not be possible without the funding. For example, while the Mandarin programming sounds great, right now there is only finding for the pre-k & K, and it will only last a year with the current funding. Just one year of Mandarin is not entirely helpful. Additionally, the current funding status of the school does not allow for aids in every classroom. The best programming in the world just isn’t worth it’s weight without the funding to back it up…
The funding is likely the major factor that made PS199 such a great school. They PTA said so themselves at the open house — PS199 gets very little money from the DOE and pretty much all of their money from the PTA. Close to 1 million dollars every year! This is what allows PS199 to have the extra services, such as aides, and extra programming to help children excel.
Again, without the funding PS191 will not catch up. While the demographics will change for the current year, there is no way this single year of students will be able to create the kinds of funds that are at ps199 for ps19, especially with PS191 going up to eighth grade!
There are 2 possible solutions for this:
1. With the change in the name, allow the new class (Andrew, that would be your class and below) to raise PTA money for just that class and below, for future classes. This way, this class can continue to have the great programming you are describing, such as the maker and mandarin programs, even after the politician’s money potentially runs out. This will allow the pioneers, like yourself, to continue to develop innovative programming without having to worry as much about the cost.
2.) If the DOE will not allow for this change in funding structure for the new school, then they, themselves should commit to matching the funds that PS199 is able to obtain. That would be $500,000 to 1 mil per year.
These proposals may sound somewhat outlandish, but these public promises are what the incoming classes need to be able to trust that this programming will actually materialize and that PS191 is more than just an idealistic vision.
I agree with HWTRF.
Andrew C – I also admire your passion and I truly hope the school succeeds.
However, just vision and idealism can actually turn away the families affected by the re-zoning. It’s like watching an episode of Shark Tank, where aspiring entrepreneurs try to pitch their dreams to the investors. Some of those entrepreneurs are so passionate about their vision that they turn a blind eye to developing a successful business model.
If 191 wants newly re-zoned wealthy families to invest their children’s education in the school (and their dollars), it has to pitch the model, not just the vision. It’s a tough one, because this “new” school has inherited a student body where grades 1-8 are mostly from economically disadvantaged families. One of the biggest concerns holding back newly re-zoned families is how they feel they will be burdened with funding the costs for that entire student body. Exploring new approaches to the underlying funding model sounds great, but that still sounds like a vision pitch.
At the very least, the class assistant funds program should be based on donations per grade. Other schools already do this with the reasoning that younger grades have more need for class assistants than older grades.
“If 191 wants newly re-zoned wealthy families to invest their children’s education in the school (and their dollars), it has to pitch the model, not just the vision. It’s a tough one, because this “new” school has inherited a student body where grades 1-8 are mostly from economically disadvantaged families. One of the biggest concerns holding back newly re-zoned families is how they feel they will be burdened with funding the costs for that entire student body.”
It’s a PUBLIC School, funded by PUBLIC funds
First, it is too easy to be critical. Andrew deserves support from our neighborhood no matter where the zone lines fall.
About $ – P.S. 199 (even with PTA money) at best, is close to receiving the same per pupil funding that PS191 receives because of Title 1 funding. The million dollar figure that is much bandied is not correct. Yes, there are some savings that P.S. 199 derives from larger classes and same fixed costs. Paras/aides are not funded by the PTA – funding is derived from extra money that the school gets for each child with the need for a para/aide. The PTA does fund a science teacher.
I argue that PS191 should continue to receive Title 1 funding even if it loses Title 1 status so it can keep the programs it has – I think (could be wrong) that the after school childcare is free and funded by the school.
“I argue that PS191 should continue to receive Title 1 funding even if it loses Title 1 status so it can keep the programs it has” – Angeline
“Like many of the laws passed during the height of the civil rights movement, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act sought to right decades of injustices largely rooted in unequal access to resources.
“As a son of a tenant farmer, I know that education is the only valid passport from poverty,” said President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, when he signed the law on the lawn in front of the one-room schoolhouse where he grew up in rural Texas.
“By passing this bill,” he continued, “we bridge the gap between helplessness and hope for more than 5 million educationally deprived children.”
Title I, the largest federal K-12 program, was how Johnson planned to do that. And since children from poor families often enter schools with a host of more-costly educational needs – from less exposure to reading and math to social, emotional and nutritional problems – it’s important the limited federal dollars are funneled to those who need them most, he reasoned.”
from:”Title I: Rich School Districts Get Millions Meant for Poor Kids” US News & World Report
Dannyboy:
I think you miss my point – it is a hardship if a Title 1 school suddenly loses its funding because it falls below the 60% threshold. Is a school that has a 50% free/reduced lunch population much less deserving than a 60% FL/RL population?
I did not miss the point.
I think you know that a school that does not qualify for Title 1 Funding but gets the Funding is taking the funding from schools that do qualify, but that don’t receive their fair share.
Do you believe that the new, improved, highly attractive NEW PS 191, with its new influx of higher-income families should take Funding from ‘schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards.’ (Title I, Part A Program – U.S. Department of Education)
I taught in Title 1 schools.
Try again.
PTA dollars do not fund the paras who accompany students with IEPs but they do fund assistant teachers. My child attends PS9 and our PTA funds full day assistant teachers in all classrooms. This was a major attraction of PS 9 for me and many others. We also use parent funds to finance Spanish, Chess and a librarian.
https://ps9.org/why-count-me-in/
Many would argue that it is not fair that wealthier schools can fund raise just for their school, and that the money should be spread more broadly. The counter argument to this is that parents at these schools are willing to give more generously if they know the funds are going more or less directly to their children, and would give less or not even have their children in public school if this was not the case. A school like PS9 has a significant percentage of lower income students who benefit from the donations of the wealthier parents. Again, you can call the wealthier families whatever names you want, but this is a fact of life and isn’t going to change.
Hi HwtRF,
thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Funding is key I agree. However, one reason we are also looking to leverage programs like the Maker initiative is because it opens the window for partnerships and sponsorships outside of just parents.
PS199 has a formidable PTA. It is undoubtedly one of their biggest strengths. That said, I don’t know if that is necessarily the model of success that we should prescribe to.
In the same way that your well-meaning suggestion around segmenting early childhood would unfortunately create divisions in our student population, I think a heavy emphasis on funding via parent contributions may have a similar effect on our school community over the longer term.
Perhaps it is idealistic, but, again, I have to believe there is a different definition of a successful funding model in two respects. One, are there other funding models that look to like-minded third-party contributors and beneficiaries as an equal or potentially greater contributor than parents with resources? These beneficiaries don’t necessarily need to offer just finances but can offer time, services and/or equipment as well. The Maker/STEAM initiative has a large and growing community around it and could potentially serve as a vehicle for this type of participation.
Two, funding matters. But to what extent? How much is enough? At what point does the incremental benefit of funding decline and the need for other creative educational solutions grow? Cities around the country have tried to address similar issues by “throwing money at the problem” with mixed results at best. Perhaps then the solution isn’t reliant on funding alone? Again, one of the benefits of Maker/STEAM is aside from some of the set-up costs, it is not hugely capital intensive. In fact, as technology like 3d printers get better, it gets incrementally cheaper to launch every day. Anecdotally, on one of our research visits at a local private school which has implemented a Maker program, they said that five years ago it cost them $50k to launch the entire program. Today they said it could be a fraction of that to get the same equipment.
So, again, totally hear your concern. And I’m not going to be naive to say funding doesn’t matter. It absolutely matters, full stop. That said, what we are exploring here is, in addition to new concepts and models around education, is new approaches to the underlying funding model that will sustain our school for generations to come.
Hope this helps.
Again, I admire your passion, but you are really being naive to think that funding has no role in the success of a school. There is a reason the wealthier towns and “pockets” of New York have such great schools. As others have stated, funding pays for aides, teachers, and other very necessary additions that are essential for Childrens’ learning success.
This is also why the doe is changing the zone lines. They are hoping the wealthier families will be able to contribute–it’s the cheapest solution for the doe. The problem is that while it saves the doe money to count on the rezoned families to contribute, this model will not materialize for at least 6-8 years — and that’s assuming the rezoned families actually chose to go to a school that currently has horrible test scores in the interim.
Again, I love your passion, but it is also important to be realistic.
Changing the funding structure could also be helpful in keeping title 1 funding in place longer. I figure: the name of the school is going to change, so pta funds raised by classes within the “Riverside South” school (k and below) should stay within Riverside South. PS 191 should keep its name in order to help maintain title 1 status. If the g & t program is within 191, funds from g & t go towards 191. Hopefully with just 1 of three classes, this will not affect title 1 status. This way, when the Riverside South school is expanded from K-5, ps 191’s middle school grades 6-8 will keep its title 1 status, which the students need!
I know it’s hard for you to see this in the excitement of it all, but this rezoning is a huge money saver for the doe (think of how expensive it would have been for them to get an entirely new administration rather than simply moving 452 for example). It would be a huge travesty for everyone if the students who are currently in 191 lose the federal funding they absolutely need because the city is trying to save some money by having upper middle families eventually be the ones to contribute financially to the school, which is the current model.
You may not see how important this is now, while you are in the very well funded prek, but you will surely see it if you remain at ps191.
“Changing the funding structure could also be helpful in keeping title 1 funding in place longer…”
From US News & World Report, “Title I: Rich School Districts Get Millions Meant for Poor Kids”, June 1, 2016:
“In fact, 20 percent of all Title I money for poor students – $2.6 billion – ends up in school districts with a higher proportion of wealthy families.
“It’s not fair,’ Grounard says. ‘It’s appalling.'”
In my experience, and I have some, pioneering parents who wish to change the system start out very enthusiastic in Kindergarten and 1st grade, like Mr. Chu. Kids that age are just little kids, after all, and the problems they face at home don’t impact the broader classroom as frequently. Unfortunately, as kids get older, the going gets tougher. Look at Kim watkins, you probably couldn’t find a more idealistic parent. She came into PS 191 with the best intentions, but lasted only a year before fleeing to an all-white Gifted & talented program.
It’s noble and wonderful that Mr. Chu chose PS 191 for pre-K (a fairly integrated program already, as others have noted), but we will see if his child is still at the school two or three years from now. That’s where the real work begins.