Vote on privacy regs delayed! and why the failure of District Planning to plan for smaller classes matters

Oct. 29, 2024

1. Good news! Because of the concerns we expressed in the letter sent last week to DOE, pointing out the many serious flaws in their proposed revisions to Chancellor’s regulation A-820 on student privacy, and the more than 3,000 emails sent by many of you, the DOE has agreed to put off the PEP vote on these regulations for another month.

Now the privacy regs are scheduled to be voted upon on November 20, at 6:00 pm at The Michael J. Petrides School (715 Ocean Terrace, Staten Island). Hopefully before then, they will be strengthened enough so we can support them. Please respond to this email if you are interested in attending this meeting, along with other parents concerned about the need to better protect students’ privacy to prevent damaging breaches and prohibit their personal data being put up for sale, or used for predatory marketing or other dangerous purposes.

2.     Our briefing last week on the many problems with DOE’s current privacy policies and practices was well-attended, co-sponsored by AQE and the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy. Among those who logged in were State Senator Robert Jackson, Greg Faulkner, the chair of the PEP, and many parents and teachers who asked great questions. If you missed it, we have now posted a video of the event along with an updated copy of our presentation.

If you’d like us to make a similar presentation to your CEC or Community group, please let us know.

3.     Yesterday, a Chalkbeat article reported on the proposed closure of PS 25, a small, Bed Stuy zoned elementary school in District 16. Six years ago, along with PS 25 parents, we helped organize a successful lawsuit that prevented this from occurring. Our lawsuit was primarily focused on how the CEC had not voted to approve the school closure, even though CECs must approve any change in zoning lines. In addition, PS 25 had an excellent track record in providing a quality education to its high-poverty students, including smaller classes, impressive test scores, and positive parent and teacher survey results. The parents at PS 25 had sent scores of letters to the DOE, begging them not to close their school, with no response.

After we got a temporary restraining order in court, DOE withdrew their proposal due to public pressure and a terrific Judge who vehemently expressed her dismay in court about the prospect of this school being closed. Unfortunately, demographic patterns and the lack of DOE support to help promote the school has led to its enrollment continuing to shrink. As I told the Chalkbeat reporter, I’m concerned that if the CEC approves the closure, the students who currently attend PS 25 must be provided with the opportunity to attend another high quality school nearby, which was denied them when the DOE first tried to close the school six years ago.

More broadly, it is unacceptable that neither this proposal nor any of the changes put forward by District Planning for the next two years in any district take into account the need to lower class size, or even mention class size in their reports, presentations or proposals. This is distressing, considering that many of these reports include plans for school closures, co-locations, grade expansions, rezonings and/or other changes in school utilization that could hamper or even preclude the effort to lower class sizes.

Last night at a CEC 16 meeting, I asked District Planning staff why there was no mention of class size in their proposal to shut PS 25, nor in any of their other proposals, especially given the need to comply with the class size law. They refused to answer my question and told me to ask another DOE official, Erin Gehant, who facilitated the Class Size Working Group and works in Operations and Finance. I intend to do so, but as I pointed out in a recent letter to the State Education Commissioner, if the DOE had any coherent plan to lower class size, it would be reflected in these District-level proposals.

What’s especially disturbing is that while District Planning reports used to contain class size data, and their presentations had an analysis of how certain proposals could increase class size, any mention of this issue has now been scrubbed from their public-facing documents since the class size law was passed and signed into law. We are now in the second year of the legally required five-year phase-in of smaller classes, and the failure of District Planning or DOE as a whole to take into account the need to take into account class size in these proposals is yet another striking indication of their failure to make any coordinated, good faith effort to comply with the law.

If your CEC is sponsoring a presentation from District Planning or if any proposals have been put forward for your schools that could affect their ability to lower class size within the next three years, please let us know. And please speak out about the need to ensure that whatever school utilization changes DOE suggests, they must promote rather than prevent the need to lower class size to the limits required by law.

Thanks,

Leonie Haimson
Executive Director
Class Size Matters
124 Waverly Pl.
New York, NY 10011
phone: 917-435-9329
[email protected]
http://www.classsizematters.org/

Follow on twitter @leoniehaimson