Year: 2015

Dock Street, IS 611, MS 313, and the #D13 Rezoning

brooklynrob Uncategorized

The following post is co-authored by fellow cec13brooklyn council member Maggie Spillane and myself. (Please note these statements solely reflect those of Maggie and me and do not reflect the thoughts of the entire CEC.)
​
The CEC13 Brooklyn​ calendar meeting is this Wednesday, September 30th – 6:30pm (we suggest you arrive by 6pm to get a seat) at PS 307.

At this meeting we expect the CEC will get a formal proposal from the NYC Department of Education​ regarding the #D13rezoning of PS 307 and PS 8.

Assuming the proposal is the same as the draft proposed scenario shared on September 1, and while we will continue to solicit and consider any additional information and viewpoints, we believe the current proposal merits our support with respect to the two elementary schools involved.  

HOWEVER, we are very concerned by the continuing uncertainly surrounding the new middle school, IS 611, previously committed to the CEC and scheduled to open at Dock St. next year (September 2016).

The long-term viability of the rezoning is premised in part on re-siting M.S. 313, which is presently co-located with P.S. 307, in an allocated footprint of hundreds of seats. Conversations with the DOE over the summer indicated they planned to propose re-siting MS 313 to Dock St.  We raised concerns about both the vagueness and the timing of this concept and asked that any rezoning proposal contain specifics about the re-siting.  

Further discussions with the District Superintendent clarified that the plan would be to open IS 611 as a new middle school into which MS 313 would subsequently merge. The Superintendent stated that the DOE would conduct meetings with the MS 313 community to ensure a merger plan that was welcoming and viable to the ongoing families at that school. Additional meetings would be held across the district to solicit input about what current elementary school families wanted in their new middle school at Dock Street.

Last week, DOE officials represented, in verbal responses to the public, that M.S. 313 would be re-sited into the Dock Street building, be re-named, and possibly receive new programming and a new admissions policy.  Neither the CEC nor the public has been provided with any information about these contemplated changes and we are not aware of any efforts the DOE has made to involve families in these decisions.  

There is no information in the Middle School Directory that would indicate these type of changes to prospective families.

In informal further discussion with the DOE, we received no additional detail about these changes, but the DOE indicated that, in contrast with prior representations, it no longer expects Dock Street to house a new middle school but simply to house only MS 313 (along with the 100-seat pre-k space also to be sited in the Dock St building).

While we understand re-siting is important to the rezoning proposal, we also believe that the middle school quality crisis is the the biggest problem in District 13 right now, more important and more urgent than even the PS 8 waitlist. Accordingly we cannot support a rezoning plan that does not come along with specific commitments with respect to IS 611 and MS 313 that are more in-line with prior representations about the Dock Street middle school. We request:

  • A commitment that IS 611 will be a choice middle school open to all of District 13;
  • An explicit admissions plan for IS 611 that will promote diversity;
  • An academic plan that will serve the academic needs of a diverse student body, including and especially students who are lagging in their academic performance AND students who are accelerated and need advanced academics;
  • A concrete, specific plan for how MS 313 students, staff, administration, and families will be transitioned into IS 611;
  • A communications and change management strategy to make prospective D13 middle school parents (i.e., 5th grade parents) aware of the changes coming to MS 313 and of the IS 611 option and how to apply, including by making IS 611 an option on the New Schools Application expected in March 2016 for September 2016 enrollment;
  • 100% Fair Student Funding, as is uniformly provided to new schools;
  • Clarity that neither MS 8 nor Arts & Letters are being moved to Dock St.

Additionally, we know that with additional pressure for middle school capacity, IS 611 alone will not fully remedy the middle school crisis in District 13.  We also call on the NYC DOE to clearly and publicly endorse the M.S. OneBrooklyn​ vision for a dedicated middle school at the new school facility recently approved by the City Council at Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park in Prospect Heights.

We believe the lack of clarity around the use of Dock Street has fueled much speculation and political maneuvering that is needlessly and destructively adding to the tensions concerning rezoning PS 8 and PS 307. This must end.  

Simultaneously, the DOE’s delay in engaging the community and creating and announcing a viable plan for IS 611, and the merging of MS 313 into 611, is inexcusably contributing to the challenges of our D13 middle schools.  It is adding to the already considerable uncertainty for families across the entire district who are in the middle school choice process.  In so doing, it is creating barriers to diverse recruitment into the new school that it may struggle to overcome.

It is not acceptable that the very important opportunity of Dock St, and especially IS 611, be treated as an afterthought to any PS 8 and PS 307 rezoning. District 13 was committed a new middle school at Dock Street open to all D13 students and that’s exactly what we expect delivered for next year.

Signed,
CEC13 Elected Members Maggie Spillane (PS 9 parent) & Rob Underwood (PS/MS 282 parent)

Thoughts on the PS 8 and PS 307 #D13Rezoning

brooklynrob Uncategorized , , , , , ,

The proposed #D13Rezoning of PS 8 and PS 307 is now garnering national attention. Both the NY Times and Wall Street Journal have done stories about the rezoning topic in the last day.

Given the attention being paid to this potential rezoning, I wanted to post some of my comments I’ve made about the many issues each of us as cec13brooklyn members, including myself, need to weigh once we have a formal proposal presented (expected September 30th) and we prepare to vote.

As I’ve written about before, I’m dismayed by Brooklyn’s educational parallel universes (i.e., the Mayor’s “two cities”) so evident in this discussion, as well as the contradictions and conundrum inherent in advocating for the opt-out movement and yet citing test scores as a reason to not send your child to a particular school. Some of the most difficult issues core to this discussion – segregation and racism – were the initial impetus for my interest in district planning and the CEC (especially in 2009 as the new 133 plan was being developed) and have been a critical factor at my children’s school, psms282 (itself the subject of several NY Daily News opinion pieces on the topic of NYC school segregation here and here.)

Here first is a comment I posted originally to Facebook last week.

I applaud Mayor Bill de Blasio for speaking up on the Brian Lehrer Show about the need to demand developers build schools in and around new residential construction. (Also – Both CEC13 Brooklyn and myself are big fans of the ‪#‎CS4All‬ initiative and applaud that announcement).

This in mind, and as we discuss collectively and respectfully the PS 307 / PS 8 rezoning with each other, we should keep in mind my great friend and fellow CEC member Ed Brown’s point towards the end of the PS 307 town hall about the under utilized schools in and around Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO, Fort Greene, and Downtown Brooklyn. We all see the high rises going up, and the potential is clearly there for a need for more middle and elementary seats. But while downtown schools like PS 46, PS 67, and PS 287 – even D13 schools further afield such as Park Slope School PS/MS 282 (my kids’ school) – go under-used by the community and their surrounding neighborhoods, the SCA is unlikely to make new elementary school buildings in D13 a priority, as planning happens at a district, not zone, level. When demanding new elementary schools be built, and thinking from a district planning perspective, we need to be mindful of the schools nearby that have unused seats. And as Ed challenged us, we should ask why are these schools struggling to fill their roster.

We also need to keep in mind that all elementary school students become middle schools students. When we’re asking about more elementary capacity, we must think ahead to middle school capacity. This is why initiatives such as M.S. OneBrooklyn are so important. All our kids in D13 deserve to have great middle school choices after they complete their elementary school education.

Today I reiterated some points above, expanded upon others, and made some points anew, in a Facebook comment:

(A)s CEC member who will be voting on this, I hope we use this as an opportunity to call attention to a few other issues, especially school funding, the billions owed by the state to the city in school funding (the state owes PS 307 $880K, PS 8 $2.1M), and the implicit expectation that PTAs must pick up much of, among other things, the cost of core enrichments important to attracting new parents and growing young lives. Many D13 schools are in a “doughnut hole” where they no longer have Title I status but still can’t produce the hundreds of thousands of dollars in PTA funds that some celebrated Brooklyn district public elementary schools can and do.

I hope too we look at testing and how test scores are used to evaluate schools. I struggle to get my head around white parents who are active in the opt-out movement and then use test scores as their rationale to avoid a school that is majority students of color. I also urge us to stop using phrases like “good school” and “bad school”.

I hope we also keep mindful of district wide needs and planning including that (and why) we have under-utilized elementary schools nearby. I also hope we can stay mindful of middle schools and the need to plan for strong middle school communities throughout the district. It’s great to advocate for more and stronger elementary schools – we also need strong middles for all those kids too.

I challenge all of of us – not just Black and White but our Asian and Hispanic sisters and brothers too – to think hard about diversity and segregation and what it means to live our values in our own lives and with our own children.

Finally I hope we can look more at how developers have come into communities like downtown and Prospect Heights getting huge tax breaks, public funding, and the power of eminent domain to tear down existing housing and offices to be replaced with gleaming towers. The developers much be held to account to the existing community, not just the one to which they market and is yet to come to Brooklyn.

Two closing points:

  • While I write this primarily in my CEC 13 capacity, I’m also a board member of Community Board 6, which mostly overlaps with District 15. As we think about middle and elementary school planning for Downtown Brooklyn, I urge everyone – including and especially the Downtown Brooklyn Schools Planning Working Group (DBSPWG) – to consider the District 15 portion of Downtown Brooklyn (primarily the PS 261 and PS 38 zones) as well as more broadly the impacts of new residential growth in developments such as Fortis/LICH. A coordinated, rationalized plan considering both District 13 and District 15 is crucial.
  • I really hope folks use this rezoning to reflect on educational equity. ALL kids deserve a great education at a safe school. I generally disagree with the negative characterizations of PS 307 – this is a school I know pretty well and there are amazing things happening there. But I find it troubling that only now that DUMBO children might be zoned for 307 that some DUMBO parents are taking an interest in a school in their own neighborhood, just blocks from their home. Did not the educational prospects of those children matter before the rezoning? If a school is not good enough for your child, is it good enough for any child? Again, I think PS 307 is a strong school community so I’m not asking these questions to imply I agree with the negative characterizations. I just am bothered that apparently few to any of these concerns with the school (307) were brought up by the DUMBO community when it was “other people’s children” going there. Do the educational opportunities we create for brown and black children from NYCHA houses – our neighbors – matter less? Do young #BlackLivesMatter?

The Parallel Universes of Education in Brooklyn

brooklynrob Uncategorized

Take a look at this article today in DNAInfo. This article illustrates a primary reason for the urgent need for improved middle schools in Brooklyn District 13. 10% of the “persistently dangerous” middle schools in all of New York State are in D13.

Our Brooklyn schools are not just segregated – they existing in separate educational worlds within common neighborhoods. These are parallel universes on shared blocks. One of these 3 “persistently dangerous” middle schools is in Park Slope (MS 266), just blocks away from MS 447, widely considered one of the best middle schools in all of Brooklyn. Another is in DUMBO (Satellite West). Park Slope and DUMBO are two of the most affluent neighborhoods in Brooklyn and New York City as a whole.

One universe is that of majority white schools, with well funded arts programs and other enrichments, strong parental involvement, active opt-out movements, and the other many benefits that accrue with privilege and power. These are schools where principals can be vocal, highly visible spokespeople against the testing regime and teacher evaluation process.

The other universe is that of majority student of color schools, nearly always Title 1, struggling to get both sufficient DOE and PTA funding for even the most basic of supplies. These schools often have significant percentages of ELL, IEP, and other extra need students. These are schools that frequently poorly perform on the same tests the majority white school students no longer even take (since their parents are opting-out). In some cases these schools are unsafe as this report illustrates. At these schools principals live in fear they’ll lose their job if they can’t raise test scores – for them it’s unimaginable to speak out against the DOE or NYS tests, even in private.

Especially if you label yourself “progressive”, but even if you’re just a human, you should care about this. You should be outraged. I am.

I have every intention of making addressing these inequities my top priority in my continued work on CEC13.

(8/16 Update: I’d be remiss in not pointing out the amazing bit of reporting by fellow District 13 parent Nikole Hannah-Jones on “This American Life” about the topic of school segregation. It’s also worth your time to check out 3 pieces about school segregation in NYC, and in particular in Brooklyn, today on the Daily News – “Mix Match and Learn”, “Separate. Unequal. Still.”, and “Lander and Torres: Breaking the Cycle of School Segregation.”)

Code Syntax Compared

brooklynrob Coding , , , , , ,

A friend of mine is getting into coding. He was asking me a bit about what language to learn and how they are different. He was curious about functions in particular.

To show him the differences I decided to write a very simple program to calculate the area of a triangle in 5 different languages. Each program is run at the command prompt. I tried to write the program in more or less the exact same way, somewhat ignoring a couple conventions in order to make each program as identical to the others as I could.

Python:

#triangle.py
#run at command prompt with python triangle.py

def triangle_area(base, height):
    area = (1.0/2) * base * height
    return area

a1 = triangle_area(10, 2)
print a1

Ruby:

#triangle.rb
#run at command prompt with ruby triangle.rb

def triangle_area(base, height)
   area = (1.0/2) * base * height
   return area
end

a1 = triangle_area(10, 2)
print a1

For all the Ruby (and Rails) vs. Python (and Django) debates, these two languages look nearly identical in these examples. That doesn’t hold true forever, though. The main difference is that Python starts the function definition (the inside of the “black box”) with a colon. The function ends when the code is no longer indented – white space matter a lot in Python compared with other languages. Ruby on the other hand does not use the colon and ends the function instead with “end”.

JavaScript:

// triangle.js
// run at command line with a program such as node – e.g., node triangle.js

function triangleArea(base, height) {
   var area = (½) * base * height;
   return area;
}

var a1 = triangleArea (10, 2);
console.log(a1);

JavaScript, in part due to its history and orientation to the web, does printing to the prompt a bit differently.

PHP:

<?php

// triangle.php
// run at command prompt with php triangle.php

function triangle_area($base, $height)
   {
      $area = (½) * $base * $height;
      return $area;
   }

$a1 = triangle_area(10, 2);
print $a1;
print “n”;

?>

Many people think PHP is ugly. I think it’s the dollar signs and question marks. Somehow it feels cheap and uncertain.

Java:

/** Triangle.java
Must be compiled first 
Run at command prompt javac Triangle.java
Then run java Triangle
**/

class Triangle {

public static double triangleArea(double base, double height)
      {
         /** Need 1.0 to get calculation to work right – indicates double **/
         double area = ((1.0/2) * base * height);
         return area;
      }

public static void main(String args[]) {
      double a1 = triangleArea(10.0, 2.0);
      System.out.println(a1 + “n”);
   }

}

This is the only example that needs to be compiled. Complied languages generally run faster and programming in languages that need to be compiled is sometimes seen as “harder core”, though that’s a somewhat outdated view. Remember – right tool for the job!

I’ll do this again soon .. maybe adding R to the mix.

Occam’s Razor Takes on the NFL Refs to Explain #DeflateGate

brooklynrob Uncategorized

A caller on WFAN 660 this evening hinted at what I believe to be the most plausible explanation for #DeflateGate.

Summary: The refs never measured (or set) the PSI of the balls before the game. Or, if they did, they only did so for a couple balls, but not all. The footballs were delivered to the refs under inflated and left the refs under inflated.

This idea reconciles the Brady narrative, the Belichik narrative, the Kraft Godfather 2 “This committee owes an apology, Senator” bit and, crucially, the delay on the part of the NFL in announcing something. It reconciles Bill Nye the Science Guy. It also fixes the problem that the deflation (or, perhaps more correctly, the lack of inflation) would have been much more easily done before inspection than after.

Essentially the theory is that the balls were prepared in the elaborate way, focused on feel, that Belichick went into at the Sunday presser. The theory further holds that the Patriots never measured the PSI of the balls before they were handed to the refs. The Patriots prepared the balls based on feel – I never heard Belichick say that the Patriots themselves checked the balls’s PSI before handing them to the referees on game day.

A critical quote from BB: “When the balls are delivered to the officials’ locker room, the officials were asked to inflate them to 12.5 PSI. What exactly they did, I don’t know.”

He continued “But for the purposes of our study, that’s what we did. We set them at 12.5. That’s at the discretion of the official, though. Regardless of what we ask for, it’s the official’s discretion to put them where he wants.”

This implies that 1) on game day the Patriots ball crew was not in the habit of checking the PSI – this was something new they did for the “study”, and 2) that the refs are not only supposed to check the balls but also inflate them (or, conversely, deflate them in Aaron Rodgers’ case) as needed to make them in compliance. The burden of checking and preserving inflation lies with the refs. This MMQB article and video seems to back that up, including a video of the process: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/22/deflategate-video-how-nfl-officials-check-game-ball-pressure/

The implied theory of the caller and my now working theory: the refs examined some of the balls, mostly by hand. If they checked any balls with a gauge, it was only a couple (essentially a sample). It was fewer still, if any, that they further inflated based on readings.

Simply put, the auditors – the refs – dropped the ball. They were sloppy. A rigorous check of all 12 balls never happened. The balls were under inflated all along. Perhaps the footballs further deflated during the game due to atmospheric condition, but that’s a margin of error stuff.

This brings up a question around “sin of omission”, i.e., should the Patriots have checked the PSI of the balls before they were handed over to the refs? So far as I can tell, teams are not obligated to hand over balls they are certain are above 12.5 PSI (read the official rules about balls yourself at http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/5_2013_Ball.pdf) and if they were, there would have to some margin for error before a penalty is issued – would a team handing the referees one ball of twelve at 12.4 PSI to inspect be penalized just as much as a team handing a ref 12 balls at 10 PSI? It sounds like a team could hand the ref fully deflated balls if they’d like – the burden of checking AND inflation lies with the referees.

Let’s assume that giving under-inflated balls to the refs to inspect is not a violation. If that is so, were the Patriots “gaming” the system by purposely giving balls that “felt” right but in fact were objectively a little under-inflated to the refs in the hope they’d pass inspection? Were they seeing what they could get away with? Or was this simply the process they had always followed, focusing on feel and not the PSI, leaving the PSI up to the refs? That’s the area where interpretation of intent and motive may lie.

But I think this is what happened.

My father passed away today after a prolonged battle with Parkinson’s Disease.

brooklynrob Family

My father passed away today after a prolonged battle with Parkinson’s Disease. He was 68. I was with him. See post from my brother Andrew – https://www.facebook.com/robunderwood/posts/10153703530551393.

Please do not send me cards or flowers – our house is too small and cards go in the trash eventually. If you’d like to honor my dad’s life please consider a donation to the The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research or JourneyCare (who did hospice for my dad).

Thank you.