In the national debate over education, corporate
education reformers are arguing that charter schools are just another
option for parents who deserve to have an array of choices on where to
send their children. This framing purports to situate charter schools
alongside public schools in coexistence rather than competition. But
this is false. The harmonious vision falls apart when charters literally
push out public schools, as illustrated by the current battle between
charter chain Success Academy and several public schools in New York
City’s Harlem.
A close look at the seemingly local
dispute also shatters the fundamental premise that charters are as
“public” as public schools, serving all children. With the charter
movement in 42 states and stronger than ever, the struggle for space in
Harlem is shedding light on some of the sector’s most dubious practices.
What’s
going on in Harlem, then, may be unique to New York in terms of
co-locations — when several schools are housed in the same building —
but taps into the much broader issue of access and exclusion in the
education “reform” movement. The territory dispute over limited space in
New York City is symbolic of those national trends, with a charter
school (Success Academy) attempting to expand its space at the expense
of existing public schools (PS 149 and PS 811, the latter of which is in
District 75). District 75 schools are often co-located with public
schools that serve general education populations. Sometimes, District 75
schools exist at multiple sites, meaning a principal may be at one
site, but the school may have other locations around the city with their
own students, teachers and administrators.
In the
struggle to find space for both public and charter schools, District 75
schools have long been the first to get shuffled around, according to
Advocates for Children, an organization that defends access to education
for students with disabilities and other marginalized children facing
discrimination. “Because they’ve been broken up into pieces, the DOE
[New York City Department of Education] often hasn’t seen them as having
a real claim on being part of an education community,” explained Kim
Sweet, executive director at Advocates for Children. But, added AFC
staff attorney Paulina Davis, “I think for the students who are in those
programs, they very much consider that [location] to be their school.
That’s their community.”
Even
when they don’t displace a District 75 school entirely, co-locations
can encroach on available space and squeeze a building’s available
resources. For high-need special education students, who often receive
supports like speech, occupational and physical therapy, losing space to
additional schools may leave them with literally nowhere to go. If
Success Academy had expanded as planned into PS 811 in Harlem, those
kids would have been left doing therapy
in the halls.
The
instability that comes with jostling for space creates an educational
challenge for all types of children, who thrive under a steady routine.
But for certain populations in District 75, that instability can be
especially damaging. “For children who have particular challenges
regarding change, dealing with change, or forming relationships, to move
them around a lot is especially disruptive to their educational
process,” explained Davis. Even small changes in routine can be
extremely anxiety-inducing to some children with autism or emotional
difficulties; that those students are so frequently expected to adapt or
move entirely betrays a disregard for their needs and well-being.
Also
at stake is the safety of these populations, whose behaviors sometimes
require more support than general ed students. In New York City, as with
an increasing number of school districts across the country, schools
are
monitored
by at least one NYPD School Safety Agent (SSAs, or sometimes referred
to as “School Safety Officers” or SSOs), uniformed officers charged with
maintaining the safety of the students. But as an
NYCLU report
uncovered late last year, SSAs receive little training in special
education, making it much harder for them to meet the emotional or
behavioral needs of the children they’re charged with protecting.
The
tragic death of 14-year-old Avonte Oquendo illustrates the need for
trained, knowledgeable SSAs in buildings that house special needs
students. Oquendo, who was autistic and non-verbal, and had a known
history of running off, wandered out of his school last October, but was
seen and questioned by an SSA before exiting the building. His District
75 school was co-located with two other schools. “Questions have been
raised as to whether the School Safety Officers in that school were
adequately informed about the needs of the populations with autism who
were attending the District 75 school,” said Sweet.
Sweet
emphasized that sharing space isn’t always a bad thing. In fact,
housing special needs children in the same building with general ed
students provides important chances for kids to interact with each
other. Integrating disabled and non-disabled students, she says, is
beneficial for all children. The problem comes when long-term
co-locations become unstable and District 75 students are forced to
adjust, not because it’s in their educational interest but because a new
program needs their space.
One of the especially
sinister aspects to the current battle in Harlem is Success Academy’s
own record when it comes to serving students with disabilities — a
record that, once again, is illustrative of the charter sector
at large, with the important exception of charters that prioritize serving high-need populations.
Last summer, the Daily News
reported
that two dozen parents from Success Academy sites were claiming that
the school was failing to follow federal and state laws when it came to
disciplining their special needs children and that those kids are being
suspended and pushed out at disproportionate rates compared to public
schools. One Harlem site had a suspension rate of over 20 percent,
compared to the single-digit rates of public schools in the same area.
Success Academy 4, the location currently in the dispute that would have
left District 75 students receiving services in the hallway, does not
offer self-contained classes, according to the latest data from
Inside Schools.
That means that they would have taken space from a school serving a
high need population, only to replace it with a school that could not
serve that population. By comparison, Harlem public schools in the same
area have about
14 percent high need special education students.
“When
you have a school that is attempting to come into this community, that
is not prepared to accept and service the same students within that
community, that is concerning,” said Davis. Disturbingly, a study by the
U.S. Department of Education found that, at a quarter of the charter
schools surveyed, administrators had told parents that their school
would not be a
“good fit”
for their disabled child. According to the Council for Exceptional
Children, discouraging the enrollment of special needs children is
illegal since it breaks with the nondiscriminatory policies required of
public schools.
To cite charter schools’ high test
scores as evidence that they offer a better education than public
schools, as Moskowitz does, is dangerously misleading given their
exclusion of certain types of learners. “To allow the charter schools,
which are supposed to be equal opportunity educators, to dump those
students, and to accept only those students who come to them without
problems, without issues, without challenges is really to set them up to
succeed and public schools up to fail,” said the New York Civil
Liberties Union’s executive director Donna Lieberman. “All kids have a
right to an education, not just the ones who are easy.”
Mayor
de Blasio’s call to rescind three of Moskowitz’ locations was an
important push against an ongoing, nationwide effort by well-funded
charter investors to encroach on public education. It’s a physical
battle, and a political one. And the proponents of charters are not
reacting in kind to de Blasio’s small but significant effort to apply
even the slightest brakes to their mission — which has the support of
Andrew Cuomo, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the powerful,
ruthless national education “reformer” Michelle Rhee. The New York
Senate’s latest budget proposal calls to increase public funding for
charters and further empower the charter sector. It also reinstates
Moskowitz’ co-locations — meaning that special needs students in Harlem
are once again at risk of losing more of their school.
Given
the strength and scope of the charter sector in this country, these
issues of access and inclusion must be part of any conversation in which
these schools call themselves “public.” To advocate for parental choice
is one thing. But if the same schools meant to increase possibilities
are, in fact, eliminating them for certain children, then the rhetoric
of charters falls apart. Students with disabilities deserve schools that
can meet their needs and make them feel welcomed and supported. The
rights of already marginalized children should not be an afterthought in
the education debate. The erosion of those rights is a profound and
imminent crisis to the principle of public education.
