• Bridging Differences

    In Bridging Differences
    Deborah exchanges views with a different colleague, each for a month or two.  Her current correspondent is Harry Boyte, a Minnesotan (although his roots are southern). He has always been a friend and mentor, even though we come to stuff in different ways and even disagree on and off. He is a professor and an activist, a theorist and a practitioner, with a focus on democracy—beginning a long time ago when he worked with Martin Luther King. He has written or edited ten books on the topic and founded a Center on
    democracy which is now at St Augsberg College, but formerly at the University of Minnesota.  

  • Where I’ll Be

    Dec 1-3, 2016 Fall Forum Coalition of Essential Schools: Providence, Rhode Island

  • Network for Public Education

  • Good Morning Mission Hill

    For information on showings or purchasing the video Good Morning Mission Hill
  • Central Park East Elementary School

  • Twitter Updates

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Saving CPE I

garland_logo

Dear friends,

I am frequently asked about the situation at Central Park East I that has recently made the news. Which side am I on, I’m asked.

I am unequivocally on the side of those who wisely have concluded that the current principal must move on. She cannot do the job required. Bringing in someone to “help” her where she is weak is not a solution, but merely a postponing of the inevitable drift into more “standardized” practice and a more hierarchical school structure.

What is needed is an interim solution that helps pull the school together, hire new staff, set the tone and continue to improve the practices and approach that has marked CPE I’s 43 year history.

These include: staff governance, choice for families and staff, strong parental voice and advice, substantial teacher autonomy to develop curriculum, no admissions requirements re academic or social “fitness.” dedicated to serving predominantly low-income students of color, and the belief that a good open, progressive school should be able to serve all children together without separating them by so-called ability—by tracking in any form including social or racial indicators. CPE I’s form of progressivism was, on the spectrum, perhaps more inclined to emphasizing “play”—self-initiated cognitive activity—which often includes physical movement, as well as choice, sustained periods for uninterrupted work, peer collaboration, and demonstration versus standardized testing. Work and Play share common purposes and are, in fact, hard to distinguish. Play is at the heart of serious intellectual work, and observation provides teachers with the best means of support for further growth which rests, in professional jargon, in something called self “agency”.

CPE was dedicated to the task of creating a democratic community of citizens with different roles to play—students playing the role of citizens-to-be in some areas and equal citizens in others. It was based on substantial time set aside for children and their families to meet with their teachers, and open access to classrooms by family members.

It was also based on an agreement between the staff to meet together several hours a week, mostly during the school day, as well as before and after the school year—plus a planning meeting for the fulltime professional staff in mid-winter. If the faculty was responsible for the school’s work it needed time to effectively play such a role—on matters great and small.

For 32 years this process worked—serving largely District 4 families, plus a very small number of District 5 and others. We had a commitment not to seek a waiting list! When we had more applicants than spaces the District agreed to start other schools that worked together with us and had a single application process—thus CPE II and River East. The teacher-directors (and later principals) of these schools were almost always former teachers in the same or similar schools.

We were just three out of what became a District of 50 small schools during that same period, all with far more autonomy than generally found in urban public schools—including the neighborhood schools (only one was closed due to low enrollment in the district) and the new schools of choice.

A few years after we opened the District asked us to add white students to help the District to gain access to Federal integration funds—and to increase District enrollment. We liked the idea and set a kind of informal quota so that we would still remain predominately for low-income minority students. (Before that it was first come, first serve.)

When Jane Andrias left as principal in the early 2000s no one on the staff was prepared to take the job. Over the next 10 yeas, CPE I had 5 different principals, only one of whom had a professional background in any form of progressive education. During this period the school was largely held together by the commitment of its staff and the activism of its devoted families. It often faltered in terms of cohesion, shared time, and support for new teachers. In some ways, while classrooms continued to attract positive attention from parents, university educators and scholars, it lacked what a lead-teacher/principal (the former was the original conception) could do best. It remained the school I happily sent colleagues to visit—including those from Mission Hill, which I started in Boston.

But this fall, after the last short-lived principal retired, it was clear that the newly appointed principal had no background knowledge or experience with elementary, early childhood and/or progressive education, much less functioning in the tradition of collective decision-making and belief that all children—not just privileged children—were well-served by our kind of pedagogy. We had data that proved it had worked for more than 30 years—why all of a sudden was this kind of school not sustainable by a principal who believed in such practices. Rather than wait to critique, the newly appointed principal almost immediately began to make changes in the way the school had practiced open, progressive education.

Many decisions were made without consulting staff from day one through yesterday—on matters that have always been the purview of faculty and parents. Some of it was unavoidable given the circumstances but the practice continued even where emergencies did not require it. It was clear by word and action that the principal believed that she was the boss, the first and final authority. It appeared also, that she saw the kind of play that CPE always engaged in as frivolous and that the flexibility the school was accustomed to regarding rules and regulations were henceforth taboo (we had followed our former Superintendent’s advice to practice “creative compliance”). Above all she made clear that “some” children needed a very different kind of education than the school was accustomed to providing—i.e, Black and low-income children; in short, the very children we had historically served.

For reasons mostly out of the school’s control—the changed demographics of East and Central Harlem (gentrification) and CPE’s disengagement from District Four during the Bloomberg reorganization—the school’s demographics gradually changed during the past ten years. It became a school with a minority of low-income children, although still substantially racially integrated in a city with few such integrated schools. If one included bi-racial families as students of color, CPE has remained about 60% Black, Brown and bi-racial and 40% White and Asian. (About 2/3 of the families of color have signed the petition asking for the removal of the current principal)

To rectify the loss of low-income children the elected parent representatives made efforts to apply for the new Chancellor’s admissions initiative that would enable CPE to set aside spaces for low-income children. The new principal was uninterested. Thus while other progressive schools have applied in order to help them be more economically integrated CPE I has not. Unsurprisingly, by following the “rules” the latest lottery-based Pre-K will be almost entirely White and mostly District 4.

All our early dreams seemed to me unachievable if the mission we began with continued to be undermined—by misinformation or open disagreement. We lasted through many superintendents in District 4 and even more city-wide regimens for a very long time. I tended to despair as I learned more about the situation—including conversations with the new principal and the district superintendent. But committed parents and staff kept “pestering” me and I realized I could not avoid my responsibility to them. I had to take a stand.

We need to find a solution that is fair to the latest principal, who might well be fine in a different setting she is more in tune with, to those parents who agree with her, while also providing the majority of the community with the leadership that will enable the CPE we put so much of our hearts into to be restored. We need to embrace the spirit of democracy that CPE I was intended to demonstrate but which requires an unusual collegial form of leadership to restore, .

That is where I stand.

Deborah Meier
Founding teacher-director of Central Park East

Advertisements

7 Responses

  1. Great and fair statement… Love and Hugs, Ann (Lieberman)

  2. Thank you, Deb, for this. Please let me know how to help spread this around.

    Chalkbeat? Huff Post?

    I don’t have connections at these outlets but they would benefit from printing this.

    Cheers,

    Elizabeth 🌹

    Elizabethrosemusic.com Yomizthebook.com

    >

  3. How demoralized you must feel. Thank goodness you are still able and willing to resurrect what had been lost. If I’d had known there wasn’t a waiting of progressive educators trying to institutionalize what you created, I’d have across the country to try to be a part of such a mission. It would seem that a coalition of progressive educators and teacher educators everywhere should have the preservation of Central Park East as a top 10 priority. Whenever I fear all is lost, I often reread one of your books to remind me that “it” has been done and “it” lives, at least at Central Park east.

  4. I have watched my own district slowly fall victim to the current top down, data driven, test obsessed meme. I am glad you have stepped in to help regenerate a progressive structure at CPE 1.

  5. A visionary and increasingly rare vision! May you find the leadership that this tradition deserves.

  6. Hi Deb,

    So troubling to read your post and so hard to know what to do. The whole situation seems fraught with local politics and personalities when in fact, this could be the story of every progressive school: victims of relentless micro aggressions and insults from the systems who are in place to help them thrive. It seems to get worse every year. The strategy is to insult the leadership model with a barrage of new rules and when the principal has had enough, put in someone who will ‘get the school in line.’

    Increasingly, schools are places of apartheid where families don’t have the resources to fight on their own and the schools are worn down so can’t lead the families through the many fights. And our children and families have so many needs.

    I don’t know what to do other than keep doing my small part and being a positive presence for staff at MHS. They are truly heroes. But where the heck are the back up troops?

    Anyway, sorry to be four. I hope you are swimming every day. Hope to come by in August on our way back from the Catskills.

    Love,

    Helen

    On Tuesday, July 19, 2016, Deborah Meier on Education wrote:

    > debmeier posted: ” Dear friends, I am frequently asked about the situation > at Central Park East I that has recently made the news. Which side am I on, > I’m asked. I am unequivocally on the side of those who wisely have > concluded that the current principal must move on. S” >

  7. Deb- your response is critical here. Your statement is clear. The parents (and alum parents like myself) and the group of devoted staff that upholds the progressive ideals you lay out continue to fight hard to preserve what we know children need and deserve in education. I respect parents not wanting this type of education but then I am confused as to why they would choose CPE1. Its educational approach is known and clearly not a traditional one and does not track or rank children nor rely on tests. That can be made clear to every parent and professional who visits. The fight is to preserve the school, mend the cracks, and come back together to the core mission but it is hard to counter the lies, lies, lies and manipulations of the DOE, superintendent and others involved in the school. For some reason, it is easier for people to accept these lies and a counter-narrative about the school that has been spun- than to believe what the teachers and vast majority of parents are fighting for. In this day and time, the values, caring, humanity, teaching approaches and real community of CPE1 are needed more than ever. Your letter should be a strong help in this conflict. I hope your meeting with the DOE proves so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: