Thursday, March 14, 2013

Meeting Minutes from last night's meeting with the STEM parent body


Thank you all for attending. 



On Mar 14, 2013, at Mar 14, 2013Thu 11:03 AM, Michal Melamed wrote:
3/13 - Meeting was at Igloo (thank you Igloo for last minute booking of the back room).  About 30 STEM parents were in attendance.  

1 - Results of the survey were presented (distributed earlier in the day on google group and posted on blog).  There were no questions.

2 - Michelle went through the Athena plan (also distributed earlier in the day on the google group). First a summary of the plan:

a - STEM needs a middle school
b - more citywide seats are needed
c - there appears to be space available at PS 17Q which is on 30th Avenue and 28th Street (1 subway stop from PS 85Q).  Over the past 4 years PS 17Q has had declining enrollment (possibly due to issues with a previous principal who was replaced this year with a new principal who came from 122, also PS 234 opened just a few blocks from PS 17Q probably also decreasing enrollment).  Last year there were 561 kids in the school where the capacity (there are 2 different methods for calculating - historic (bigger class sizes) and target method (smaller class sizes) is either 899 or 776 depending on the method used.  Currently there are 215- 338 seats available (depending on the method) - no one knows if enrollment will continue to fall - but if it does - there should be enough room for eventually a separate K-8 school with 2 classes per grade.

In the proposal that was distributed there were 2 options for how the school would be populated.  Briefly, option 1 - all STEM classes from PS 85 move the first year the new school opens. Option 2 - new school starts with 2 Ks, 1 1st and 2 6th grade classes and adds each year till eventually all classes from 85 transition to new school after 5th grade.  

There are pros and cons to each option. These are not exhaustive pros and cons but are the ones discussed at the meeting.

Option 1 - 
Pros - fundraising all in one location
pick-up and drop-off all in one location
PA/ learning leaders all in one location
school is up and running faster
One principal coordinating curriculum

Cons - we will lose clusters currently available at PS 85
We will need to hire many certified g&t teachers and this may be very hard
Kids will lose out on finishing what they started (PS 85)
Everyone will get a rocky start in the new school, not just 5 classes

Option 2 - 
Pros - 1. plenty of time to hire new teachers, etc.
2. kids get to graduate from where they started school (PS 85)

Cons - 
-families will get split up (if have currently 1 in 4th and 1 in lower grade)
-There will not be enough students at new school to have all the clusters which we think are important.  85 will still have Science, Art, Music, Gym, Chess/Robotics, Technology, Library but student in the new school will likely have no more than 2 clusters to start.
-the last kids will leave 85 in 2020 - which is a long time for the DOE to change its mind about thing
At the end it was decided that we should present the plan without the options for population of the school and if they accept the plan, we can work with the DOE on acceptable solutions.

There was some discussion about what things can be shared between colocated schools - some of these are - a library and a librarian, a nurse, cluster teachers (but they won't be g&t certified), psychologist.  

Some questions that came up:

1 - Can some kids leave 85 while others choose to stay?  No - this cannot be done on a per child basis.  The DOE will ultimately decide how it will be done (which grades will move) but having parents choose for their kids individually will not work.

2 - Can our kids go to 122?  This is a very important point - all of our kids because they attend a district 30 school are district 30 kids.  They can apply to PS 122 just like any other kid in the district (they will not automatically articulate there).  Michelle thought that our kids could potentially automatically articulate into 126 if we pushed the issue.  Also, they can apply to any other district 30 middle school - so if you don't want your kid in g&t any more and would rather them go to a more arts focused program you can apply to Louis Armstrong.

3 - Do the principals at PS 17 (and 85) know about this plan? - When creating the plan, Michelle talked to Dr. Composto, the Superintendent of district 30.  He is OK with the plan.  She called him today and told him the plan was being presented publicly and he was going to talk to the principal at PS 17.  Ms. Chang was included on the e-mail that was sent out to the STEM group that included the plan.

4 - What if the DOE takes our plan and makes us into a program again at PS 17?  - They won't/ can't do that because PS 17 is a K-5 school - it cannot have a K-8 program in it.  It needs to be a different school co-located.

5 - What about Success Academy? - Success Academy has filed to create 2 new K-8 schools in district 30.  We are competing with them for space.  We need to make sure the politicians/ DOE know that our kids have been in district 30 for years and need a solution before Success Academy gets their schools.

6 - What happens if PS 17 doesn't decrease in enrollment as we expect? - Then we move again.  Anderson had to do this recently when PS 9 where it was previously housed needed more room for the gen ed students.  Anderson was moved to another location in district 3.  If we are a separate school at PS 17, then even if we get moved again, we move with our own administration and teachers.

7 - How do we explain to the bigger PS 85 community what is happening?  - Whenever we talk about this, we need to make sure that we say that this proposal is not a reaction to PS 85 it is to a problem that the DOE created when it put the program at PS 85 which did not have the room to have the program grow.  We are very happy with everything that PS 85 has to offer except that we need a middle school and the DOE does not split site programs, so the whole program will eventually need to move somewhere else. It was decided that a member (or a few) from the middle school task force will present at the next SLT meeting.

Finally, Maria Duda talked about next steps - also outlined in a paper distributed to the STEM google group.  We need everyone in the next day to write e-mails to the DOE requesting a meeting with STEM parents about middle school (see separate e-mail from Maria Duda).  It is not acceptable that this wait till June, our kids need an answer sooner. In addition to writing the DOE, we will need to start getting letters from our elected officials again.





Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Monday, March 11, 2013

Middle School Task Force Report -


From: reb b. <rebb_  AT hotmail.com>
Subject: [STEM 2017] Middle School Task Force Report
Date: March 6, 2013  10,:38:26 AM Mar 6, 2013
To: ps-85-stem-2017@googlegroups.com


Thanks to everyone who responded to the Middle School Task Force Survey.

Here is a brief summary of the information we collected. I posted it yesterday to the STEM-wide google group, but realized that some of you might not be on that group. 
We are working to schedule a meeting in the near future to go over the results in detail and to plan next steps.


I look forward to seeing many of you on Friday for our publishing party!
rebecca

STEM Middle School Survey
Results Summary

The STEM Middle School Survey, which ran from February 14 to February 28, 2013.  Over that two week period, 162 parents filled out the survey. Of those parents responding to the survey, 133 had one child in STEM, 21 had 2 children in the program and 4 had 3 children in the program.  Overall, the survey collected responses from parents of 93 children in the STEM program (out of roughly 123 children in STEM.)
There are a few points on which there was overwhelming agreement:
·        98.8% (160 parents) support expanding the STEM program to include grades K-8.
·        96.8% (153 parents)[1] expressed a preference for including more than one class per grade in the proposed STEM K-8 expansion. 
·        92.3% (143 parents)[2] expressed support for expanding STEM even if the expansion did not occur in time for their children.
·        91.4% (133 parents) considered no-test admission to the other citywide programs or to PS/IS122Q to be an acceptable interim solution.[3]
When the topic turned to the particular configuration such a STEM expansion should take, there was much less unanimity.  However, the survey revealed that a majority of the parents shared a preference for a stand-alone K-8 school.
·        61.3% of the parents responding (98 parents) selected a stand-alone K-8 school as their first choice; and 123 parents selected that option as their first or second choice.

·        The next closest choice was for a stand-alone 6-8 Middle school which was the first or second choice of 62 parents, with 8.1% (13 parents selecting it as their first choice, and 49 parents selecting it as their second choice).

·        Nearly 20% of parents (31 respondents) chose “so long as it happens quickly and our children enter without testing I am fine with any of these options” as their first choice.
Feelings on this topic are quite strong, with 78.5% (124 parents) indicating a very strong preference for their first choice.

No option among the 4 presented in the survey was unacceptable to a majority of parents.

With regard to the preferred location of an expanded STEM program,
·        17% (27 parents) expressed a desire to move STEM to another district
·        54.1% (86 parents) preferred that STEM remain in District 30
·        28.9% (46 parents) expressed no opinion[4]



[1] This number does not add up to 162 because 4 parents skipped this question.
[2] This number does not add up to 162 because 7 parents skipped this question.
[3] The survey did not ask about no-test entry into IS126 because that option surfaced after the survey had already begun. This number does not add up to 162 because 16 parents skipped this question.
[4] Number does not add up to 162 because 3 parents skipped this question.


Rebecca M. Bratspies
Director, Center for Urban Environmental Reform
Professor of Law
CUNY School of Law
2 Court Square
Long Island City, NY 11101
718.340.4505

-- 

Friday, March 8, 2013

Executive Summary of Survey Results


STEM Middle School Survey
Results Summary

The STEM Middle School Survey, which ran from February 14 to February 28, 2013.  Over that two week period, 162 parents filled out the survey. Of those parents responding to the survey, 133 had one child in STEM, 21 had 2 children in the program and 4 had 3 children in the program.  Overall, the survey collected responses from parents of 93 children in the STEM program (out of roughly 123 children in STEM.)
There are a few points on which there was overwhelming agreement:
·        98.8% (160 parents) support expanding the STEM program to include grades K-8.
·        96.8% (153 parents)[1] expressed a preference for including more than one class per grade in the proposed STEM K-8 expansion. 
·        92.3% (143 parents)[2] expressed support for expanding STEM even if the expansion did not occur in time for their children.
·        91.4% (133 parents) considered no-test admission to the other citywide programs or to PS/IS122Q to be an acceptable interim solution.[3]
When the topic turned to the particular configuration such a STEM expansion should take, there was much less unanimity.  However, the survey revealed that a majority of the parents shared a preference for a stand-alone K-8 school.
·        61.3% of the parents responding (98 parents) selected a stand-alone K-8 school as their first choice; and 123 parents selected that option as their first or second choice.

·        The next closest choice was for a stand-alone 6-8 Middle school which was the first or second choice of 62 parents, with 8.1% (13 parents selecting it as their first choice, and 49 parents selecting it as their second choice).

·        Nearly 20% of parents (31 respondents) chose “so long as it happens quickly and our children enter without testing I am fine with any of these options” as their first choice.
Feelings on this topic are quite strong, with 78.5% (124 parents) indicating a very strong preference for their first choice.

No option among the 4 presented in the survey was unacceptable to a majority of parents.

With regard to the preferred location of an expanded STEM program,
·        17% (27 parents) expressed a desire to move STEM to another district
·        54.1% (86 parents) preferred that STEM remain in District 30
·        28.9% (46 parents) expressed no opinion[4]



[1] This number does not add up to 162 because 4 parents skipped this question.
[2] This number does not add up to 162 because 7 parents skipped this question.
[3] The survey did not ask about no-test entry into IS126 because that option surfaced after the survey had already begun. This number does not add up to 162 because 16 parents skipped this question.
[4] Number does not add up to 162 because 3 parents skipped this question.


Rebecca M. Bratspies
Director, Center for Urban Environmental Reform
Professor of Law
CUNY School of Law
2 Court Square
Long Island City, NY 11101
718.340.4505

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Additional information about PS/IS127

At the beginning of 2012-13 school year, the DOE came to CEC 30 with a proposal to put the STEM K-8 in the PS/IS 127 building under the 127 administration. PS/IS 127 is a school in district 30 with 1427 children and is a high needs school (many ELL and Special Ed, Free lunch students).  It has a capacity of about 1200 students, depending on which method is used to calculate it.  The population of the school has been growing by about 5% per year for the last 5 years.  With this plan, they would phase in/phase out PS 85 (the kids currently at 85 would stay at 85 until the end of 5th grade and then phase into 127 in 6th grade). There would then be a new K class at 127 and no new STEM K classes at PS 85 until all the kids were together at one school (PS/IS 127).  This plan was rejected by the CEC because 127 is very far from the subway and is already overcrowded without room for another 250 students.

Friday, February 15, 2013

For record keeping purposes, here is survey that is currently being disseminated to STEM parents.

We'll update this post with the results when they are in.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Update from Office of Portfolio Planning

On 2/13/13, in response to news that Eva Moscowitz of Success Academy would attempt to open two new charter schools in Queens, Evie H. wrote:

I wrote Office of Portfolio Planning about the Success Charter schools asking for info about it and whether these would take priority over us. Here's the response.  
In terms of your question about Success Academy Charter Schools- many charter operators are working on their plans for 2014 and beyond. As part of their planning they are beginning outreach in the communities they want to serve and will concurrently begin the application process to the charter authorizers, the State University of New York (SUNY) or the State Education Department (NYSED). Charters will generally do their own engagement and outreach. Once there is a formal charter application in place, the Authorizers and DOE will do a formal notification and application hearing. That could be as early as this Spring.

NYSED and SUNY have published their RFP timelines to accept applications for charter schools with a potential opening in 2014. You can review those RFP’s here for SUNY and here for SED.

The concerns of the STEM community to expand to serve K-8 remain a priority in our planning  for 2014-2015 and beyond. We are continuing to work with the superintendent and CEC 30 and we plan to have a proposal in place before the end of this school year. Thanks again for your insight into the STEM community and I will certainly keep you posted.