New Haven Independent

Posted by: Seriously? | June 16, 2009 11:30 AM

At least NHPS admits that Reggie handpicks kids to fill open seats. This is a travesty. In the NY suburb where I grew up, you went to a neighborhood school based on where you lived. If you moved, you switched schools. Everyone knew in which district their home was located. The end. Why does New Haven find it so difficult to implement such a simple system? At a minimum there should be complete transparency -- maps, waiting lists, and an on-line/phone system that lets you know where you are on the waiting list at any moment in time.

The NHPS isn't the only entity to blame. Parents glorify Hooker. If East Rock Magnet School attracted East Rock parents the same way Hooker does, it would have the same success rate that Hooker does. (East Rock Magnet School should be a neighborhood school.) And if Celentano were just renamed Hooker II and the student populations from Hooker and Celentano were integrated, we could make some headway there, too. This is at some level about marketing and branding, both areas in which NHPS lacks serious skills. Parents are completely risk-averse, as one would expect, and rely on the Hooker name even though their children would fare just as well at other NHPS schools.

Note, based largely on neighborhood gossip, I'm also pretty sure that Wade's comments about Hooker's in/out of district make-up is false. There were definitely new enrollees this past winter. Not sure if they changed the in/out of district ratios.

Posted by: anon | June 16, 2009 11:42 AM

How about giving teachers performance incentive pay so that all of our schools can be as good as Hooker? Why are the Unions blocking this?

Posted by: Bruce | June 16, 2009 12:01 PM

This is totally bizarre. I can't think of a single reason why there isn't a clearly defined and transparent system. I feel bad for these parents who are simply trying to get their kids into a good school.

"Mayo then personally decides whom to give the seat to..." Why would the Superintendent of the entire school system have any involvement on selection of individual students?

Posted by: LOOKDEEPER | June 16, 2009 12:12 PM

Parents that cant get their kids in the school need to research who is filling these spots in the school because alot of nhps administrators and their friends send their own kids to that school and dont live anywhere near the school!! Its all who you know!! BS if you ask me!!!

Posted by: Moira | June 16, 2009 12:17 PM

Good luck to these parents! Their persistence will hopefully pay off, as it did for me and a few other parents who encountered the same issue at Nathan Hale School this year. There is no transparency with respect to NHPS. Let's hope this changes. Until then, keep up the good fight.

Posted by: Streever | June 16, 2009 12:31 PM

Bruce: I suspect that you are stirring the pot on this--and rightly so. I'm pretty sure you & I both know why the system is neither transparent nor clearly defined.

By making things ambiguous, you allow people to abuse the system. That seems to be working all over New Haven's public school system.

The worst thing is how many otherwise independent voices fall silent on this one issue. It's unfair & unjust but they either don't want to admit they pulled a favor to get in, or they don't want to jeopardize their child's chance to get in.

While it isn't a personal issue for those of us without children, it contributes to an overall damage to our city to allow this. We need better schools, and as long as loopholes exist to allow the administrators & favorites the opportunity to get their children into a good school, they will not be encouraged to fix the very broken system we have.

Years of favoritism & poor judgements have led to this, & without a transparent system it will never improve.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | June 16, 2009 12:36 PM

No wonder Mayo doesn't have time for school reform. He's too busy assigning kids to schools.

Posted by: Cross Teacher | June 16, 2009 12:43 PM

Anon, based in your question is the assumption that the reason Hooker's scores are better are because of the teachers. There are many other variables affecting the scores and quality of education at Hooker.

Posted by: Whaat? | June 16, 2009 1:20 PM

There's also cronyism regarding teaching staff at Hooker. A plum job if ever there was one and to h*ll with Union seniority and teaching credentials. It's who you know, not what you know.

Posted by: stptia | June 16, 2009 1:37 PM

Reggios gotta gooooios!!!!

"schools chief Reggie Mayo looks at the people who have registered for the school. Mayo then personally decides whom to give the seat to, based on existing transfer requests."

Now this makes sense! We all know ke has nothing more important to do than HAND PICK who gets to go to Hooker???? Give me a break.

How about we write a fair procedure and stick
to it. Then we can hire someone at $12 an hour to figure this situ out

How long have we had this mess at Hooker? Every year the same stories about the WH lockout. We need to clean house here folks. We can do better, we deserve better!

Can Harries fix this mess too???

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | June 16, 2009 1:56 PM

Beyond all the skull-duggery, pay-offs, influence peddling, etc. that it takes to get your kid into Hooker, the answer to the problem is to make EVERY school as attractive as Hooker school.

Lots of posters will say that Hooker is good BECAUSE of the students and families it attracts and not because education within the walls is being delivered with any more skilll than any other NHPS school.

This is mostly right. I am sure that the teachers at Hooker are by and large "good" (because if they weren't, the principal would hear about it from parents). At the very least, the education establishment seems not to be harming the Hooker students. This may seem like a low bar, but it is still one bar that NHPS can jump over.

Hooker does not stress the education system. Why? Because it is jammed packed with parents who seek to be involved, who have the means and education to be involved, and who happily provide support and supplementary education at home. The kids who come to Hooker are prepared to succeed. When parents are involved and have means and education, you would expect that any school can do reasonably well. SOme do outstanding.

But Hooker is NOT the problem. The problem is the other 50 schools in New Haven which do not have a whole lot of upper-middle income kids with two highly educated parents.

Lots of our population are from low income backgrounds without educated parents. The same teachers who teach at Hooker and are successful WOULD NOT be successful if they transferred to Mauro. Why? Because there are two entirely different populations of students - and FAMILIES.

One school is like a well-care fitness club whereas the other is an intensive care ward. We need to recognize that the same people who are doing a good job at Hooker are not necessarily going to get the same results at Mauro, particularly if they have the same hours and use the same techniques.

Staff in the "intensive care ward" need to be highly qualified and equipped to overcome the problems at home, compensate for the unequal education coming in the door, BUT BE COMMITTED TO DELIVERING THE SAME STUDENT OUTCOMES.

It takes a different approach, one that the administration now seems to be embracing (Mr. Harries arrival), but one which the teacher union seems to be interested in fighting every step of the way. We can't let the NHFT bog us down.

If you think I am being over the top, just look at what the teachers union did to the state educational bill which failed to pass two days ago and which WOULD HAVE changed certification requirements for the better by allowing Teach for America to expand significantly in urban centers in CT.

Does anyone from the union care to let us know why it is against bringing in smart, young, talented people to teach in our inner cities? Also, why they would not allow artists at ECA to teach arts?

And why does the head of the CT. American Federation of Teachers threaten our local politicians when they want to open more local charter schools to help close the achievement gap?

Any response Cicarella and Burns?

Posted by: sassy | June 16, 2009 2:06 PM

It happens all over the city..I am ready to fight the board of ed....I have two children who should be going to the new Bishop Woods School..I live 5 houses away they say the school is filled for next school year.. I am disgusted with the politics in New Haven...the Mayor says talk to the B.O.ED. no one listens time to get rid of Mayo and the Mayor..

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | June 16, 2009 2:23 PM

"Also, why they would not allow artists at ECA to teach arts?"

There are number of musicians and artists teaching there already.

Posted by: m | June 16, 2009 2:56 PM

what a load of crap this whole hooker thing is! we lived on eagle street and were "out of district" yet friends up on prospect are "in district", we lived closer to the school but did not have 1) yale affiliation or 2) 1/2 a mil. to buy a house "in district"!!! it is a completely fixed districting process removing from hookers ranks many families who are actually from the city and committed to living here and building a better new haven! reggie mayo is a figure head only making an appearance when a good photo-op is available. we can dance around this issue politely all we want but the facts are to a large extent it all has to do with who you know and how much you can spend on a house "in district"!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 16, 2009 3:09 PM

My kids did out of district and it went the way Will Clark described. I had to fill out an out of district form, and if and when a space was available they read through the forms. I was told when filling it out that the most important part was the line where they ask why do you why your kid has to go to this out of district school. That was the key question. And the answer "because I want my kid to go to Hooker" was not a good enough one. (Remember my kids where there over a decade ago my situation was dire and my kids needed to be in a secure place due to my circumstances.) I new of many kids by the end of summer that got in out of district but they did not get in untill August. This is a neighborhood school so the rule of magnet do not apply here. Community kids get first dibs. The best way to get into hooker is to live in that area.

As for Cross Teachers comment I agree. Parental involvement is what make hooker a good school! All the parents where involved in one way or another. All the kids would go home to a house where you have to sit down and do home work and study. A kid can go to any school and get a great education if there parents are involved in that education and in there lives!

Posted by: Norton Street | June 16, 2009 4:00 PM

good schools will never come before good neighborhoods. people have to first take the leap to live in this city's neighborhoods, there may be a rough 6 month-2 year period of property crime but once people lose their flat screen tvs, ipods, cell phones, and other gadgets we can start living again, instead of consuming, using, and then dying.
stop building sprawling suburban land plots, stop manufacturing so many cars, start investing in mass transit and dense urban housing and the schools will naturally fix themselves. to try and fix schools before dealing with neighborhood demographics is useless.
if we cut down on cars, we will put a huge dent in prostitution, drug dealing, drive bys, unhealthy food (drive ins like mcdonalds would have to close), and many other things that turn away families from this city.
hooker is over rated and it only continues the stream of people living in the same neighborhoods, going to the same schools, the same colleges, getting the same jobs. It just continues to circulate wealth, opportunities and development between the same people and places. Newhallville is almost physically identical to East Rock; both neighborhoods have identical architecture, identical street scapes, identical space for retail and many other similar characteristics. Suburban people need to stop trying to inhabit farmland and forests and they need to move back to urban centers. It will stop the hemorrhaging of money caused by sprawl (suburbs) and will fix nearly all societal, economic and cultural problems.

Posted by: anon | June 16, 2009 4:33 PM

Of course there are other factors, Cross Teacher. But start with the top and work your way down. Perhaps #2 is to create an incentive system for parents to participate in their child's education, but unfortunately there are about as many ways to approach that as there are schools. Recruitment, retention and rewarding of the VERY best teachers is a fairly simple intervention by comparison.

Posted by: FacChek | June 16, 2009 7:15 PM

The two faces of Eckler:

On june 3,2009 Elicker said the following in a NH independent article:

"It's not an issue," said Elicker, responding to Festa's concern. He said that he had been assured by school officials that there were no plans to turn Hooker into a magnet school.

Even if it were a possibility, Elicker said, as an alderman he would represent the ward's opposition to magnetizing Hooker. "Obviously no one in the neighborhood would want that," he said.

However, Elicker went on, magnet schools do have advantages for the city, like bringing in revenue by attracting suburban kids, and increasing competition, which fosters educational innovation.

"But I'm a big neighborhood guy," Elicker concluded.

Today, Eckler says this:(above)

"The system seems like it lacks transparency everywhere," added Justin Elicker, who's running for alderman in East Rock's Ward 10. He said he was very concerned about why there is no publicly.

Asked about Elicker's response to her questions, Festa said,

"Justin went both ways... He kind of agreed. I hope he rethinks the issue of magnet schools if he's elected."

You just can't have it both ways Elicker!!!

Posted by: Rev. Samuel T. Ross-Lee | June 17, 2009 12:11 AM

Fix the Schools wrote:

"just look at what the teachers union did to the state educational bill which failed to pass two days ago and which WOULD HAVE changed certification requirements for the better by allowing Teach for America to expand significantly in urban centers in CT.

Does anyone from the union care to let us know why it is against bringing in smart, young, talented people to teach in our inner cities?"

While there are many things that the Union does and advocates for that are disagreeable, this one is not.

The "smart, young, talented people" of whom you speak are known for coming into inner city schools without the requisite knowledge that goes with understanding the culture or knowing how to manage a classroom full of students whose lives are largely foreign to them and then leaving after about two years and running off to law or other professional schools having added some semblance of "community service" to their resumes and grad school applications.

Maybe it's time for these ivy-educated resume fillers to make a real and lasting commitment to public school education by not seeking an easier way to get in and get out of the inner-city schools while using this population to further their careers and pimping these inner-city students. I hardly think that most of them are committed to Teach for American, as much as they are concerned with Advancement for themselves.

Posted by: jawbone | June 17, 2009 9:28 AM

Facchek,
Get ready for more Justin Elicker name dropping in the NHI over the next several months. In my opinion, the NHI has made it clear who they are supporting for Ward 10 alder.
Curious quote from Elicker and curious article all around. I wonder if it counts as journalism or just stirring a big pot full of hysteria...

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | June 17, 2009 9:40 AM

People wake up,Here is the real plan for the New Haven school system under Mr.Harries

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akv07-iXs_c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eblackagendareport%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

It is call Rennaissance 2010.

Posted by: jawbone | June 17, 2009 9:58 AM

Rev., wow, sorry you are so negative. I didn't see a proposed solution or any actual ideas in your comment. Just negativity, which as you know, is poisonous.

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | June 17, 2009 10:01 AM

Rev. Ross-Lee

It is a bit unsettling to read such a disparaging term like "pimping" to describe young people who are using their energy and talent to help others....and according to a recent study are doing a pretty good job of it.

otherhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0404/p02s01-usgn.htm

In addition to your constant criticism of some ideas (and individuals), perhaps you could offer up some ideas on how to get more children to college.

Posted by: Streever | June 17, 2009 10:38 AM

FacCheck:

How is that contradictory?

Justin has stated that he believes:
a. Magnet schools have done well in some places
b. The underlying theory to magnet schools is a good, ethical one
c. He also really likes neighborhood schools, because knowing his neighbors is important to him
d. That transparency is important
e. that the current process does not seem to be transparent

please let me know which are contradictory.

While his take on the situation is certainly complex and dare I say NUANCED, I hardly think that's an indictment of him or his character.

It's a classic logical fallacy you are employing--false dichotomy--but it's not an accurate way to portray someone's views or win an argument. You'd fail rhetoric 101 if that's all you can bring to the table.

Posted by: nfjanette | June 17, 2009 11:01 AM

good schools will never come before good neighborhoods. people have to first take the leap to live in this city's neighborhoods, there may be a rough 6 month-2 year period of property crime but once people lose their flat screen tvs, ipods, cell phones, and other gadgets we can start living again, instead of consuming, using, and then dying.

You've now pushed the radical left wing view to new limits on the pages of NHI, which is impressive given the competition.

Posted by: Hood Rebel | June 17, 2009 11:19 AM

Slick Fix,
Spare us your little hissy-fits whenever you get push back on your cut and paste talking points and your misleading data.

While we in the hood advocate for evidenced-based mandatory high expectations for ALL children we are becoming more and more concerned that an elitist cell in city is pushing to dictate what the reforms should look like.

It is very unsettling to us in the hood that a cell of elitists would use phrases that suggest we should send out "life boats" and rescue children with "medium to high potential" when our history tells that we must work on rescuing all of our children since we honestly don't know who have that potential.

It is unsettling in the hood when we read in the media that a "a funder" who should just do the right thing and help pay for college education for those who cannot afford it, is demanding certain individuals involvement and certain ASPECTS of reform.

It's unsettling when you cite data that compares the results of Teach For America 2-year commitment to the program versus new teachers 1-year contract with city schools.

Spare us your selective, righteous indignation and maybe, just maybe we can find some common ground where we can work together to achieve no excuses rigorous teaching and learning for ALL of our children.

Posted by: spouse of nhps teacher | June 17, 2009 11:38 AM

Norton Street you hit the nail on the head! I'm so tired of hearing about "hooker district". Another story about people feeling entitled. I agree that the system stinks. Life just isn't fair sometimes.
Pay some property taxes in this town and then feel entitled! New Haven offers many wonderful private schools that these families should look into.

Posted by: jawbone | June 17, 2009 11:42 AM

I think that the 'transparancy' issue, with regards to the Hooker School registration policy, is a red herring.
I attended a question and answer session at the school that was held in March. It was advertised in this news outlet and, I assume, other places, too.
The Q&A session (which is not mentioned in the above article) was run by the Hooker School principles and it was very poorly attended. Maybe 10 or 15 families were there. At this meeting Robles very clearly laid out the situation. The school has 2 kindergarten classes which total approximately 50 children. There are more than 50 kindergarten age children 'in-district'. Two local pre-k programs are allowed to pre-register because they receive Head Start funds. That means there are actually less than 50 spots available. Robles told all of us in attendance that 1.)All spots will more than likely go to 'in-district' children, and 2.) if you want to get your child into kindergarten, you better be down at 54 Meadow the morning that registration starts and you better be there early. Which I did and I succeeded in registering my child.
It is by no means a good system, but I believe that the registration game is there for everyone to understand if you do your homework. If you sit back and assume that you are entitled to send your child to kindergarten at Hooker simply because you are 'in-district', then you will be sorely disappointed.
I have stated this before in an NHI forum...we are in the year 2009 and public school registration has unfortunately become a high-stakes contest in some districts. I didn't make the rules, I don't like the rules, but I acknowledge that they exist and I am forced to play by them.
In my opinion, any quotable quotes from local politicians (and prospective ones, too) is just a lot of pandering. The numbers aren't going to change...50 available spots, more than 50 children 'in-district'...it ain't hard to figure out that it is an unfortunate situation that is not going to change anytime soon. The school isn't going to get physically bigger, it was just renovated (and made smaller in order to accomodate life-safety codes.)

Posted by: Jim Martin | June 17, 2009 1:06 PM

How exciting! Yuppie infighting. Now this is real Class War!! Wouldn't your child be more enriched if you enrolled them in one of the city's more "substandard" schools? Your child would get real taste of New Haven's social and economic problems. Think of it as "urban schoolsteading". And maybe in a few years that substandard school will turn into the faux prep school you have been fantasizing about.

Posted by: Norton Street | June 17, 2009 1:34 PM

nfjanette,
i dont vote because i dont know anything about politics and thats because i dont pay attention to them (which is the majority of the country, except lots of the people who don't understand it, for some reason, still vote).
i dont see how anything i said was in any way political. i study and understand cities, culture, history, and architecture/city planning; so thats what i talk about. until you have an understanding of those things, i wouldnt comment on my posts.

if one were to switch all the teachers from hooker with lincoln basset, but keep the kids where they are, i predict that the hooker scores would remain the same and the lincoln basset scores would improve very slightly. until people stop acting like new haven is sao paolo or juarez, the schools ratings and scores will not change much.

Posted by: teachergal | June 17, 2009 1:47 PM

Hooker has it all above average students, participating parents, and good teachers (Like seen in many other New Haven Schools).

How about changing "Hooker School" into a magnet school for everyone in New Haven to be able to apply to. Do away with the "neighborhood" school, as it is unfair, and try to balance the population. It would be good for Hooker students to get to know their neighbors.

Posted by: Norton Street | June 17, 2009 1:57 PM

teacher gal,
youre first statement is 100% correct. your second however is wrong.
magnet schools need to be done away with. neighborhood schools need to stay. celebrating the continuation of magnet schools is only accepting the failure of neighborhoods, and it would require massive busing which is costly, inefficient and unnecessary if there are good mixed, diverse neighborhood schools within mixed and diverse neighborhoods.

Posted by: Mark Oppenheimer | June 17, 2009 2:14 PM

There is a solution.

I am not in the Hooker district -- my two kids are most likely bound for Edgewood School in a few years -- but I have followed this debate with interest. Two thoughts:

1) It's obvious that the current policy is unacceptable. The waiting list -- if it exists, which even the school dept. can't agree on -- should not be in the hands of the superintendent. There should be a clear, ranked list of what characteristic trumps what in getting a kid off the wait list. It should be posted, on the web, in clear language. Maybe being a minority matters more than being a sibling; maybe being a sibling matters more than being special-ed; maybe first-come trumps everything (although "first-come" shouldn't favor those whose parents can skip work every day for months on end); etc., etc. -- that's all up to the bureaucracy, but whatever they decide, it should be clear and posted publicly. Every concerned parent should press Mayor DeStefano, Reggie Mayo, and Will Clark for that kind of clear rubric, so that when one child gets off the list ahead of another, it's clear why.

2) However, until that happens, and even if that happens, there is still the question of what parents whose kids don't get into Hooker should do. How about this: Why don't you all band together and try to get your kids into the same magnet school? If you all flooded the same school, bringing your parental involvement, energy, and (I am guessing) over-achieving children to this other school, my guess is there'd be a dramatic improvement. And if you coordinate with a principal ahead of time, looking for one who is receptive to this influx of new kids, your kids may be welcomed as a transformative force in the school.

I don't mean to minimize or dismiss parents' anxiety about getting their children into one of the few New Haven elementary schools that is performing at a high level. But given the number of parents who seem upset every year, I do think there's a critical mass of you who could create another school as good as Hooker, Edgewood, or Nathan Hale. Assuming, that is, that you can agree on which school and navigate the magnet lottery successfully, which I am sure is no easy task!

Truly, I wish you luck.

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | June 17, 2009 3:12 PM

Norton St./Teacher Gal

Look at the conversation you're having! Because of the dearth of good schools, you two are debating whether we should have magnets or neighborhood schools.

Its ok to have both! Magnets are fine for kids who may have a special interest. And every neighborhood should have an excellent school. We just need to insist that ALL schools deliver education successfully. It doesn't have to be either or.

But take heart! We are finally moving in a direction where there will be ONLY high quality choices!

The district's job is to insist that EVERY school be an effective school. But after that, lets allow parents decide where to send their children. If every neighborhood has an excellent school, the demand for cross-town options will be reduced significantly.

Too hard to do in some neighborhoods, you say? Too expensive? Then let's allow funding to follow the child. We should assign a financial "backpack" to each child partly based on their individual needs. So kids with a whole host of emotional, intellectual, ESL, and/or physical challenges would be assigned MORE money because of the additional cost required to get them to grade level and beyond. The kids who need the most help get the most funding so that we can have effective interventions and we can pay the best teachers to take on the most difficult jobs.

But in order to have the money to turn all schools into highly effective schools, we need to differentiate between highly skilled teachers - and ineffective teachers. Right now, because we waste money on paying lots of ineffective teachers, we don't have enough money to appropriately reward highly effective teachers. This has to change.

Posted by: nfjanette | June 17, 2009 3:58 PM

i study and understand cities, culture, history, and architecture/city planning; so thats what i talk about. until you have an understanding of those things, i wouldnt comment on my posts.

The comments I responded to were a political manifesto, not the reasoned comments of an educated urban planner. As for your level of understanding vs. mine or others, it would seem to have little to do with the nature of the opinions you've consistently offered, which are radical. I would think you would find that characterization flattering, since you criticize so many established societal norms (as do I, sometimes). However, do you propose there is any reasonable, tangible connection between your ordering suburbanites to come to the city and reality?

Posted by: Westville Mom | June 17, 2009 3:58 PM

Norton St.--You and I apparently agree on magnetism, but we are outvoted by the "Sheff"-sympathizing crowd (http://www.sheffmovement.org/), which is composed of people (white, black, & other) who blame "racial isolation" for education failures, problems, and inadequacies. Considering that NHPS is 11% white, the only way to un-isolate would be to bring in large numbers from Woodbridge, Guilford, Madison, etc.--which is preposterous.

From my point of view, Mayor DeStefano has made (at least) three major decisions based on fear of litigation:
*Magnetism -- fear of "Sheff v. O'Neill", which was filed in 1989. [Of note: the 1st magnet school (West Hills) actually had a racial quota system, which they proudly touted.]
*Killing the Long Wharf Mall -- fear of threatened lawsuit by Westfield Corp. (owner of CT Post Mall) ... which resulted in the construction of that architectural icon, IKEA.
*Throwing out the firefighters' exams -- fear of a lawsuit against the city, which resulted in a lawsuit against the city.

Fear is a powerful motivator, it seems, but does not constitute a particularly efficacious criterion for making civic policy decisions.

This 2-tiered school system, which has one system (registration) for those who live in "neighborhood school" districts and another system (the "lottery") for everyone else is inherently discriminatory. (Any lawyers care to weigh in on this?) I am astounded--astounded--that it has gone legally unchallenged this long. Perhaps this is because the parents with the means to bring lawsuits (East Rock/Hooker) have been mostly satisfied with their "special" status. [Note to Yale: LOTS of Yale people live in OTHER neighborhoods, too, in case you haven't noticed.] Logically, it should have been either "lottery-for-all" or "neighborhood-WITH-lottery-option-for-all."

When Edgewood School was magnetized, there was a very vocal group of parents opposed to the loss of automatic neighborhood inclusion. They were written up in (I believe it was) Connecticut Magazine and received quite a lot of attention. Alderwoman Ahern (R) tried valiantly to oppose the mayor (D), but to no avail. I think most of those parents moved out of the city.

Would you choose you house by lottery? Would you choose your spouse by lottery? Would you choose your childrens' names by lottery? But most of you obediently and robotically allow the govt. to choose your child's school (!) by lottery. Absurd.

Posted by: Rev. Samuel Ross-Lee | June 17, 2009 4:15 PM

Fix The School: "It is a bit unsettling to read such a disparaging term like "pimping" to describe young people who are using their energy and talent to help others...."

Bold criticism from a person who writes under a pseudonym, J.C.

Posted by: harpe | June 17, 2009 4:50 PM

When I first came to New Haven, as a mother of pre-school children, I had no idea about schools, school districts and so on. As the kids got older I simply sent them to the neighborhood school, which was Worthington Hooker (as I am the wife of a Yale student, and now a student myself, we live in student housing which is in the school district). As our time at Yale comes to an end, and we have to move out of our home in the next year or so, and are wondering where we should go, I have realized that while I am enormously appreciative of all that Yale has offered us, it is New Haven that I love, not Yale. It is this whole city that I care about and want to see get better, not just the little extension of the ivory tower that constitutes the Hooker school district.

Thinking about that, and finding added inspiration in some of the comments here, I have decided not to bankrupt myself to buy a house in the school district. Instead we will buy something we can more easily afford, in a neighborhood that offers perhaps a little more of New Haven than the Hooker school district does. When the time comes for my youngest to go to school in a couple of years, if he does not get into Hooker, and perhaps even if he does, then I will happily get together with other parents in a similar position to send our kids to another local school, following Mr. Oppenheimer's advice. I am not assuming that those other schools out there need Yalie types like me to improve, I would not be so arrogant, but I am sure our presence wouldn't hurt. I am also not naïve enough to imagine that most people 'like me' won't dare make the move without doing so as a group, sad as that truth is.

Hooker is a great school, and as the parent of children who are both racial and religious minorities, I value intensely its international diversity. At the same time I deplore its lack of New Haven diversity. If we can, over the next few years, find enough parents who are willing to break out of the Hooker spell, perhaps we can dilute its exclusive make up, and instead have a few more local schools with a mix of both Yale's international AND New Haven diversity. I recognize that the problems with New Haven's school system go way beyond what I am discussing here, but as far as parent's individual decisions can make a difference, I am willing to try to buck the segregationist trend.

Posted by: Rev. Samuel T. Ross-Lee | June 17, 2009 5:13 PM

Harpe wrote: "but as far as parent's individual decisions can make a difference, I am willing to try to buck the segregationist trend."

FINALLY, someone (else) is willing to see and to say what this trend of having one or two good public schools (Charter or Otherwise)while the rest are left to languish really is. It's SEGREGATIONIST! And if it is allow to continue unabated, George Wallace's retracted pronouncement, "Segregation today, Segregation tomorrow, Segregation forever", will nonetheless be the reality of education in New Haven and in America.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | June 17, 2009 5:24 PM

Here is some more on the pro and cons of charter schools.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/04/30/using-civil-rights-to-sell-privatization

Posted by: Norton Street | June 17, 2009 6:11 PM

Mark Oppenheimer and Harpe, thumbs up.

However, do you propose there is any reasonable, tangible connection between your ordering suburbanites to come to the city and reality?

China has been working on proposals for zero-carbon emission cities built on land infill islands off of the countries coast. I've read through some of these proposals, and they are on their way for approval and shovels will be in the ground. China has also developed an affordable automobile that is available for an enormous amount of their population as well as India's. What is happening currently in China and to a lesser extent, India, is very similar to what was happening in America in the early 1900's. The population was getting sick of living in cramped tenement style housing and wanted room to breathe. So the government began a housing boom, developed the Model T, and connected the country with highways (all possible because of the availability of abundant cheap oil). China's population has the desire to spread out, they have the equivalent of the Model T and they have the largest consumer of oil (the United States) in their pocket. China is going to stop giving us money to buy the oil because they need more in order to build their zero-carbon emission cities (as hypocritical as it sounds, these cities will require an enormous amount of energy, materials, labor and time to become reality), to build suburbs, to fuel their population's cars and no one is going to stop them. The United States will not be happy about this, but what leverage do we have? We owe them how much now? People will argue that China needs us to be successful economically, but whoever controls the oil, has the power. China will be able to support itself through growth and taxation of their new enormous middle class. If we try to forcefully take the oil from Saudi Arabia, China will step in, and does anyone believe we can fight off SA and China? But yes, people can continue to stay in suburbs, its just that they will be slums for the next generation and only people living near work, transportation and shopping will be able to have any standard of living. The things I propose can either happen now and we do it well and thoroughly while we have connections to cheap energy or we can wait and be forced to consolidate later, which will be unbelievably expensive and probably impossible to complete.

Posted by: OK | June 17, 2009 8:05 PM

What's the REAL issue????

School % Hispanic/Black K-8 in 2007 from CT State Website
Hooker 31%
NathanHale 45%
Edgewood 71%
BetsyRoss 73%
Sheridan 73%
Jepson 76%
Davis 80%
BishopWoods 82%
Micro 86%
Mauro 87%
Ross/Woodward 87%
EastRock 89%
King/Robinson 89%
Barnard 91%
Celentano 91%
Conte/West 91%
Clinton 95%
Brennan/Rogers 96%
Beecher 96%
Martinez 97%
Troup 97%
Daniels 97%
FairHaven 97%
Clemente 98%
Truman 98%
Wexler/Grant 98%
LincolnBassett 99%
HillCentral 100%
Columbus 100%

Posted by: Westville Mom | June 17, 2009 9:20 PM

Question for Mark O. & Harpe: What makes you think your "flood" of applications will result in being chosen in the lottery for a particular school? And what effect would "coordinating" with the principal have on the legitimacy and fairness of the lottery system itself, such as it is? A word to the wise: It was exactly this kind of "coordination" at the original West Hills school that caused major ethics problems regarding favoritism, which was rampant in those early years.

Posted by: Katie | June 17, 2009 10:59 PM

Actually, Hooker does draw approximately 40% of its students from outside the neighborhood -- or out of district. So students do come from all over New Haven. Perhaps the kindergarten classes begin with largely in-district students, but it does not stay that way. While many families are either currently or formerly affiliated with Yale, it is certainly not universal and it doesn't mean that the Hooker district is segregationist or an extension of Yale. My children's friends reside all over New Haven from Fair Haven to Westville, Dixwell to Newhallville, and East Rock to the Hill. And their homes come in all different shapes and sizes as well.

We chose Hooker as, at the time, out-of-district residents, despite intense pressure and tsk-tsking from friends and neighbors who believe private school is the only viable route to a quality education in New Haven, because we are committed to public schools and think that our kids are exposed to a better learning experience at Hooker than anywhere else. There is a warmth, enthusiasm, and openness to difference -- be it viewpoint, race, religion, politics, sexual orientation, culture, you name it -- that I didn't find in other schools with which I was familiar. That atmosphere could still be palpably felt even when we were housed for over a year in a run-down building out of the neighborhood on Goffe Street -- and that kind of environment can never be considered overrated.

One last note -- we are spending the Fall semester in Berkeley (a community very similar to New Haven) where our kids will attend public school as well. Residents of Berkeley who choose to send their kids to public school fill out a form and list their first three preferences. If they live in the district of a particular school, they are given a priority over others who are out-of-district. Otherwise, everyone is subject to a lottery and you are not guaranteed your first choice, or even the school in your district. This seems to be a much more egalitarian system and it seems to work quite well. Our elementary school-aged children are not going to the closest school to where we will be living, or even to our first three choices. But I couldn't be more satisfied with the school to which they were assigned. It sounds a whole lot like Hooker.

Posted by: WilburCrossGrad | June 17, 2009 11:12 PM

The reality is that if a child comes from a stable home of middle and upper class college-educated parents, they most likely will grow up to be college educated and middle or upper class, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY GO TO SCHOOL.

As a graduate of the New Haven public school system (I went through the entire thing, K-12), I can't help but feel insulted by these new adults to the city who act as if all but a few select schools and neighborhoods here are downright poisonous to their carefully crafted lives.

And in all honesty, I feel bad for the kids, who will probably grow up sheltered and less dynamic human beings than they would otherwise. New Haven is an all around great city. If you really have to spend that much time and energy to make it palatable to your sensibilities, then perhaps you need to move elsewhere. Or save up the money and send your kids to private school. Leave the public school for those who have a vested interest in seeing ALL children within it succeed.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | June 18, 2009 9:36 AM

While OK's statistics are accurate, they are misleading, especially in the case of Hooker, which has a large Asian population. One of the things that makes Hooker special, not only in New Haven, but across the state, is that there is no "majority" population. OK implies that Hooker is 69% white, but this is not true. In addition, within these categories, the ethnic breakdown is much more nuanced. students at Hooker are much more likely to mention a nation of origin than a race, and Hooker celebrates that diversity. To many of us, this broader, more nuanced diversity is a major attraction.

Posted by: DEZ | June 18, 2009 10:47 AM

I look at "OK's" statistics as saying Hooker is 69% "other" than black or latino.

Posted by: Hood Rebel | June 18, 2009 11:27 AM

The "new" segregation in public schools (by class) has been...shhh...whispered in the hood in for years...shhh! It's now finally being SHOUTED OUT!

Posted by: Bob Solomon | June 18, 2009 11:56 AM

To Hood Rebel - What's new about class segregation? The 300 year tradition of American education has been the neighborhood school, with its obvious consequences. The fact is that New Haven's magnet schools and inter-district enrollment breaks down class segregation (as Katie points out, Hooker is 40% out-of-district, which allows much greater diversity than any other public school around), BUT, any diversity, including income diversity, is limited by the overall pool. The pool is distorted by the extensive private school culture in New Haven. That's what's so ironic about suggesting that people solve the problem by choosing private school - that's part of the problem, not part of the solution. Of course, it was precisely those East Rock private school parents who fought the Hooker middle school, in part because of the large number of students coming from outside the neighborhood. (I base the last statement on public comments at public hearings, where several opponents raised this precise objection, noting that they would feel differently if Hooker was a "real neighborhood school.")

Posted by: Hood Rebel | June 18, 2009 12:12 PM

So, if you're an "out-of-district" student at Hookerm you are not in the same socio-economic-education class of those students indistrict? How do we know this?
g-

Posted by: Bob Solomon | June 18, 2009 12:42 PM

Hood Rebel - my point was in response to your notion that this thread was (in part?)"the new segregation in public schools (by class)." Your words, not mine, but consistent with some other comments about income and privilege. I would not have used the word "class," (which is why I used "income diversity" later in my reply) but I do think income diversity and deconcentration of poverty are critical issues in housing and schools. Anyone can look at census date and see that incomes vary fairly dramatically throughout the city and even more dramatically if you consider greater New Haven. Given the census data, it's pretty clear that the narrower and more gerrymandered the school district, the more homogeneous the school population. That's why suburban school districts resist inter-district remedies, all the way to the Supreme Court. While there are lots of flaws in the system, as many have pointed out, New Haven has tried to break down some of these barriers. There is always a cost, and one cost is that some parents opt out, either by leaving the city or leaving the school sysytem. It's hard to squeeze the balloon without having it come out on the other side.

Posted by: Westville Mom | June 18, 2009 4:31 PM

Just to clarify...gerrymandering has more often been used in this area to DIVERSIFY, rather than homogenize districts. Also, there seems to be a misconception about private schools--an area of some expertise for me, given the hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt I am, due to them. (You think I'm exaggerating?... I kid not.)
The majority of the kids in private schools around here come from other towns and suburbs. I wish I had a dollar for every parent I know who moved to the suburbs "for the schools," only to end up in the private ones. And these are the schools that are statistically far superior to NHPS in terms of measurable performance! In fact, if you ever read these "Top 100" lists that are periodically published, you will have a hard time finding a CT high school on them. The last one had ZERO from CT. You can parse their criteria all you want, but I have read repeatedly and in many places that it's not just New Haven schools, but CT schools in general that are having problems measuring up to the "best" in the country.
So if New Haven parents are willing to go into massive debt to give their children not just a good, but an EXCELLENT education, why are people invoking all kinds of class-warfare rhetoric and accusations here? The fact is that the private schools have more "diversity" than most CT suburban schools, along with a lot more of everything.
As for NHPS being under-performers BECAUSE of all the kids being in private schools ... wishful thinking! In the 1920s, Hillhouse High School was the best in the nation and in 1924 sent 72 (!) graduating students to Yale! http://www.yaleherald.co/article.php?Article=3872
I might add that the private schools (Hopkins, Hamden Hall, etc.) were mostly all in existence then ... Hopkins is older than Yale, folks!!! It's quite the opposite. The fact is that so many NH kids are in private schools because the NHPS schools are underperforming. Sorry to break it you. Don't ever let the facts get in the way of your prejudices, though.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | June 18, 2009 5:08 PM

if you think comparing 1924 New Haven demographics to 2009 demographics, and similarly old stats for private schools, and lists of overall performance, top to bottom with an accurate analysis of the quality of education (that's what your top 100 schools do), then you shouldn't be complaining about facts, because you are comparing apples to dinosaur bones.

Posted by: Dem Bones | June 18, 2009 6:17 PM

I happen to be an 'out of district', un'connected,' non-yale or NHPS affiliated, low income manual laborer, ex-WH parent who had all of my children accepted, starting in Kindergarten without string pulling. And I'm not an anomoly, my children attended school there with the children of my (also unconnected) Newhallville classmates.

While I agree with Mr. Oppenheimer regarding a more sensible registration process and 'FIX THE SCHOOLS' opinion on the bigger picture that 'the district's job is to insist that EVERY school be an effective school' keep in mind that it was this NHPS who set up the meeting in the first place.

WH's Strategic School Profile states that the school maintains it's high percentage of 'out of district' children to 'reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation.'

'EFFORTS TO REDUCE RACIAL, ETHNIC, AND ECONOMIC ISOLATION

...school districts provide educational opportunities for their students to interact with students and teachers from diverse racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. This may occur through programs with other schools, distance learning, or other experiences. Below is the description submitted by this school of how it provides such experiences'...

...'In an effort to increase and expand interactions among students with varying backgrounds, our school draws from outside the neighborhood'...

And I heard they'll be teaching Chinese there next year. Go Lions!

Posted by: Westville Mom | June 18, 2009 6:19 PM

Bob, I'm sorry if your tired cliches don't enlighten me. I have 39 child-years (mine, that is) of private school experience under my belt. And the "suburbs" are not the haven of glorious schools and mean, white-flight, race-haters you imagine them to be. We all want excellence for our and everyone else's children. My criticisms of NHPS are aimed at possibly stimulating some thinking that challenges what has been done (and has failed) for many years. I am a product of (exclusively) tough, inner-city public schools where I never wanted for a textbook--and the books were things like "Comparative Political & Economic Systems" in 9th grade and Calculus, Advanced Physics and Advanced Biology in 12th. The buildings were shabby, but clean. I know New Haven can do (and has done) better and I'm not content with being an apologist for a local govt. whose only real claim to fame is being "liberal." Cast your "income-diversity"-warfare aspersions elsewhere.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | June 18, 2009 8:12 PM

WM, whoever you may be - for some reason, my comments have hit a nerve sensitive enough to cause you to resot to name calling - "prejudice.." "tired cliches...," "warfare aspersions..." So, maybe I should just leave it with that, but...

To use your year of 1924, New Haven had 163,000 people and 75% of the region's population. There was no public housing, no subsidized housing, and Winchester alone had around 20,000 jobs. Yes, private schools existed, but it wasn't quite the same for African-Americans, Jews, Italians, women. You mentioned being in debt for private school, but I doubt you could borrow funds for that purpose. So, virtually everyone went to public schools and the school system reflected the community and neighborhood schools reflected the neighborhood. If someone from Hillhouse wanted to go to Yale, in large part they were competing with other students from Hillhouse, but would still be disadvantaged compared to the almost-exclusively white men from Andover. Between 1970 and 1980, New Haven lost 25% of its population, as part of the nationwide white flight to the suburbs. Even more people left the school system - when New Haven was still less than 50% people of color, the schools were more than 80% people of color. This was true in many older cities - for a variety of reasons, people leave public schools before they leave cities. That has dramatic effects on public schools. Moreover, most studies show that the best way to ensure school readiness and early school success is by providing high quality preschool. The easiest way to provide high quality preschool is to pay for it. Having done this for my children, I do not begrudge anyone who chooses to pay for private school. However, I still believe that removing large numbers of students from the public system is bound to have an effect on the remaining peer group, and based on the demographics of the city and the school, we know that one effect is les diverse schools. One last (I hope) point - when you say that gerrymandering is used to encouraging diversity, I think you are referring to political gerrymandering of minority Congressional districts. In most cases, even that's not true, since most gerrymandering is done by parties in power (see Tom DeLay in Texas), but I was talking about schools. The greatest example is town lines, which are artificial and can be ignored for school districting if the legislature will not do so. I do not believe the legislature will do this because their constituencies are invested in the current structure.

Posted by: Tom Burns | June 18, 2009 11:12 PM

Everyone here makes valid points---Wilbur Cross Grad, you are a good man or woman and you cut to the chase--best of luck to you-----Fix---once again you have written some valid points and asked for our Union response---or mine---I am with you on the Teach for America people and for changes in certification law and was not happy when it didn't pass---if you can teach we want you-----our union is not like any that have come before it---so don't compare us with others----I will never stand for any idea or statute that will hinder a students achievement in favor of an employee/member and I have a feeling that our membership wouldn't stand for it either. Tom

Posted by: OK | June 19, 2009 2:14 AM

Again, what's the REAL issue?
The three schools parents complain about getting into are still the three with the lowest "minority". Chicken/Egg?

School: Hispanic/Black, White, Asian/Indian
Hooker : H/B 31% W 46% A/I 23% , NathanHale : H/B 45% W 53% A/I 2% , Edgewood : H/B 71% W 26% A/I 3% , BetsyRoss : H/B 73% W 27% A/I 1% , Sheridan : H/B 73% W 25% A/I 2% , Jepson : H/B 76% W 23% A/I 1% , Davis : H/B 80% W 11% A/I 9% , BishopWoods : H/B 82% W 15% A/I 4% , Micro : H/B 86% W 13% A/I 1% , Mauro : H/B 87% W 12% A/I 1% , Ross/Woodward : H/B 87% W 10% A/I 3% , EastRock : H/B 89% W 8% A/I 3% , King/Robinson : H/B 89% W 8% A/I 3% , Barnard : H/B 91% W 9% A/I 1% , Celentano : H/B 91% W 8% A/I 1% , Conte/West : H/B 91% W 9% A/I 0% , Clinton : H/B 95% W 5% A/I 0% , Brennan/Rogers : H/B 96% W 3% A/I 1% , Beecher : H/B 96% W 3% A/I 1% , Martinez : H/B 97% W 3% A/I 0% , Troup : H/B 97% W 2% A/I 1% , Daniels : H/B 97% W 3% A/I 0% , FairHaven : H/B 97% W 3% A/I 0% , Clemente : H/B 98% W 2% A/I 0% , Truman : H/B 98% W 2% A/I 0% , Wexler/Grant : H/B 98% W 1% A/I 0% , LincolnBassett : H/B 99% W 1% A/I 0% , HillCentral : H/B 100% W 0% A/I 0% , Columbus : H/B 100% W 0% A/I 0%

Posted by: Anothermother | June 19, 2009 10:33 AM

Mark Oppenheimer and Harpe, you're absolutely right - there is room in New Haven for more than one Hooker-style school, and the other schools are not nearly as "bad" as they're made out to be. We did what you did, Harpe, and bought just outside the Hooker zone hoping to have a bet each way. After three years of having our kids in a good magnet school, we're about ready to give up on public school altogether.

The problem is not the socio-economic make-up of the schools, or the quality of the teachers. We've loved the kids and the teachers and the other parents at our magnet school - they're all wonderful, dedicated, and nothing to be afraid of!! -- and have really thrown ourselves into helping any way we can.

But here's what you get if you wangle your way into Hooker: some measure of relief from the neverending test preparation that dominates NHPS right now, thanks to the No Child Left Behind CMT test regime.

I didn't understand what "teaching to the test" meant until the last three years opened my eyes. Every school in New Haven is obliged to train its children to pass these tests, and everything else slips by the wayside. Art, music, recess, allowing the kids to generate their own topics of interest and pursue that learning spark... all of that doesn't "count" so it often doesn't happen.

Officially, of course, the word is that schools are only allowed to teach test prep for the month before the tests. But in practice, pretty much every teacher from 3rd grade up is shaping every lesson around the (in my opinion, at least) badly worded, poorly imagined, and often misleading competency tests. The teachers do the best they can to fit interesting material in around the repetitive test-related training, but it's virtually impossible to sustain anything like a truly inspiring learning environment. Kids know when they're being played.

So, why are people clamoring to get their kids into Hooker? Because, among other things, Hooker's catchment of (let's face it) pretty smart kids means that the teachers can afford to spend more class time actually teaching the kids in front of them, and can treat the tests as a bit of a game, rather than working to make the children fit some externally imposed measurement.

I'm not up on the differences between magnet and charter and neighborhood schools (although I would love for every kid in New Haven to be able to walk to a decent school). But I would love for Dr Mayo and his helpers to truly think radically about what is best for the children of New Haven, even if that means standing up and saying "We reject this tick-the-box testing and trust our teachers to know what helps our children learn." I have this fantasy in which New Haven is the first city in the land to reject the whole ethos of No Child Left Behind, and instead embraces a commitment to understanding what lights our children's fire.

That will come in different forms - the no excuses Amistad approach for some, a more free-range Reggio-Emilia approach for others. But no more of this one-size-fits-all testing and teaching. It's cruel to our kids, it's disrespectful to the teachers, and it drives the parents mad (cf. this whole insane fuss about getting into Hooker!).

Posted by: Anothermother | June 19, 2009 10:55 AM

"OK," I think you're right, but that doesn't make the parents (of every race and background) who are favoring those schools racist. Maybe it just makes them clear-eyed about the effects of racism, y'know? As in, I see the "whiter" schools getting better results, the school apparently getting a more flexible hand-picked deal, and the kids having a more fun time at school, so why not try and get some of that for my own kids?

It's not right - and it shouldn't be so blatantly obvious and keyed to race - but it's logical.

And it's totally chicken/egg. As soon as one of those majority-minority schools shows a burst of overall awesomeness or gets a reputation for excellence in some area (e.g. King/Robinson with its International Baccalaureate program, or Betsy Ross with its commitment to art every day, or any school that cared to prioritise, say, science and math), you'll see the more experimentally-community-minded Yalies and upwardly mobile parents hammering on the doors.

On the other hand, the way I see it, the NCLB/ CMT testing works very hard against schools developing any kind of unique expertise or identity. Despite the alleged individual focuses of the magnet schools, they're really pretty much indistinguishable from each other at this point, since each has the same goal "to have x % of kids reading/writing/mathing at or above proficiency blah blah blah."

So it's interesting to hear that Dr Mayo is considering using "other metrics" to measure how well the schools are doing.

Does this mean putting the emphasis on test results off to one side and actually teaching the children???? Meeting them where they are and giving them what they need? Helping them figure out how they learn best and what they're great at and how they hope to contribute to their society? Allowing teachers to actually use their considerable training and experience to make the classroom burst with joy and accomplishment?

I will believe it when I see it, but I'll be very excited to see it!

Posted by: Thankful | June 19, 2009 11:18 AM

Quote from comment in the MAYO PLEDGES "RELIEF" FOR CROSS OVERCROWDING story (NHI 6/9/09):

"AND I have had my children rejected from the public schools that I fund. [BTW, no NHPS parents EVER seem to protest this injustice on behalf of those of us thus burned by the "system" -- so much for "liberal" activism.] "

Just want to thank the past and present Worthington Hooker parents and all who are speaking up to try to help improve the "system."

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/06/cross_overcrowd.php#comments

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | June 19, 2009 11:30 AM

AnotherMother,

Think of the NCLB and CMT testing requirements as the equivalent of taking a student's academic temperature. The tests are not incredibly nuanced. They are one-size fits all. And the tests certainly don't make exceptions for ESL students, or kids who live in poverty.

For high performing students, NCLB at best is "a game", at worst is a roadblock to real learning, and in the middle is probably just a nuisance with very limited benefits to the individual high performing student.

Using a health analogy, if you are in good health and feeling fine, then getting poked and prodded during your annual check-up is probably a hassle. There certainly isn't any medical benefit from the exam itself.

However, if you are ailing from something, taking your temperature will let the doctor know that you are ill. And a very high percentage of our NHPS kids are academically ill. In fact, it is epidemic.

Prior to NCLB, the educational sickness pervasive in our inner cities and even suburbs was well known, but not in as much detail as we have today. NCLB forced us to identify sub-groups of underachieveing students who attend suburban districts and whose poor performance had been masked by the larger population of high performing children. In a town like Greenwich for instance, with public schools known for producing highly educated students, academic intereventions and serious remediation efforts were directed at these sub-groups (low-income minorities) only after NCLB forced districts to report its results in this fashion. This was a tremendous breakthrough. Subsequently Greenwich has invested resources at trying to close its own intra-district achievement gap. This is a very good outcome.

One-size-fits-all testing requirements are not the best, and NCLB is a flawed blunt instrument. But the law absolutely helped to propel the educational dialogue forward. If not for NCLB, President Obama and Sec. Duncan would not, could not be in the position to propose their ambitious educational reform agenda. How we address the domestic achievement gap and the international achievement gap from which America's children suffer is vital to our long term quality of life.

"NCLB is the most important piece of civil rights legislation since the voting rights act of 1965"

- Dr. Stephen Adamowski, Superintnendent of Hartford Public Schools.

Posted by: Anothermother | June 19, 2009 11:39 AM

The larger picture here is the obscenity of a city that hosts one of the top educational institutions in the nation (indeed, the world), yet cannot guarantee that the children it its orbit will be able to read and write by the age of ten. What is up with that? Yes, I know, it's NHPS and the BoE that runs the schools, not Yale. But there's a relationship there. And Yale is, of course, home to the world-famous Child Study Centre. Expertise on the doorstep.

As I understand it, Hooker's special status derives in large part from the need and desire (a good one, I think), to offer Yale-affiliated people a halfway respectable public school for their children, as a recruitment tool. Hence Hooker's Byzantine hand-picked admission system, its protected status as one of the few remaining neighborhood schools, and its world-wide search for a new principal.

The fact that only one school is getting this special treatment (as far as I know) is what lends it the air of Marie Antoinette's private farm, where the cows and sheep were shampooed daily, and mud never dirtied the queen's pretty little feet. Hooker is effectively a show school, a Potemkin village, except that real kids actually go there every day and really learn stuff.

Even so, it could be argued that Hooker is not getting special enough treatment, and that it's not anywhere near as excellent as you'd expect a special-status public school to be.

I know there's a very delicate and weird relationship between the university and the town, and I'm barely beginning to understand just how delicate and weird. But surely Yale is invested in keeping its host city on the up and up? And educating children is the single most important key to New Haven's future.

So just as Yale has steadily expanded its Home Buyer's Program to the whole of New Haven (barring millionaire's row), what would happen if the university extended its fond purview to all the schools in those neighborhoods?? Such that any of its employees who bought a house anywhere in the city with the university's assistance could also relax in the knowledge that their kid would be able to march straight into a school that works?

Call me a crazy utopian but I see the possibility of an unprecendented large-scale experiment in fixing a city's schools. Not one at a time but all at once. With input from the brightest minds on the subject, and smart young Yale students volunteering for internships at the schools (spend a few hours a week teaching the kids how to write poetry, build a worm farm, paint a mural, create a petition, balance a bank account, sew their own clothes, do algebra, play all those recess games that are in danger of extinction, you name it). And then tempt the best of them to stay on for a year or two as part of Teach for America. Isn't there funding in the new Obama budget for this sort of thing?

And Dr Mayo and his new school czar should, meanwhile, be actively cultivating all the parents who are stepping up to ask questions and complain and worry (whether they be individuals or coordinated groups like Teach Our Children). These people are not bugbears, they're resources waiting to be tapped. Why waste time arguing with them - employ them as liaisons, volunteers, advocates, fund-raisers and missionaries for how awesome the school system could be if we just went really hard at it for a year or two.

(Oh, and, if I were in charge, I'd approach Ikea to donate its floor models as reading couches and cushions for every classroom, so that kids associate learning with luxury, creativity with comfort.)

I know, this sounds like some kind of massive relief effort or something. But this is kind of an emergency, right? And there's nowhere to go but up, as I see it.

Off you go, Model City. Show us what you're made of.

Posted by: Anothermother | June 19, 2009 11:56 AM

Fix the Schools: that's a nice analogy, and you're right: we've taken the schools' temperatures, and they're sick. (I think we probably knew that already, but I agree that it's useful to have some numbers).

But do you cure someone by continuing to take their temperature? I think to extend your analogy, what's happening is that teaching has become focussed on meeting that measure at all costs. So the kids are spending all day in an ice bath. Sure, the temperature goes down a notch, but the underlying illness is still there. There are myriad other ways to address the "health" of the institution and its denizens -- exercise, diet, preventative care, antibiotics, etc etc -- but still we keep taking their temperature and shaking that thermometer angrily in their faces.

Or think of it as weighing a cow. You can fatten that cow up any way you like, put your thumb on the scales, whatever. But the measurement itself is flawed. All these tests measure is how well students were trained for the tests. Gifted or creative thinkers are often flummoxed by them, because they are either so simplistic as to be pointless, or are so bureaucratic as to be confusing. They don't speak in any kind of language that children themselves actually use, and they don't test for creativity, adaptability, or any of the things our children need to exhibit in order to make it in the world, let alone change the world.

Yes, I know, if they haven't mastered the basics, they won't get a chance to show their true colors -- if you can't write properly, you can't translate your creativity into a form that other people can use. I know that.

I also know that if your creativity and natural spark for learning isn't tapped, you won't write properly. I have a kid whose reading age is twice his calendar age, but who has "failed" CMT-style reading tests because the questions were "stupid" and "boring" and made it so that reading was "no fun." This the kind of kid who externalizes that stuff, but how many other kids take it personally and see themselves as "stupid" or "boring" because the testing is like a wet blanket on their own spark of curiosity and empowerment, you know?

And yes, too, I know a bunch of kids who love tests and see them as game they can get the high-score on. This is also something that could be tapped, for as long as we have to suffer through these blunt instrument tests. But because of the institutional anxiety that permeates through the whole system, I think teachers have a really hard time selling the tests as a game, when so much is seen to depend on it. The kids can't help picking up on that anxiety, which rules the school and doesn't exactly make for prime test-taking conditions.

I would also note that the teachers' and principals' unions in the UK recently voted unanimously to boycott the standardized NCLB-style tests for elementary students, on the grounds that it was ruining children's education and cutting into time better spent playing, exercising, doing art and music and learning social skills.

The irony? These tests are given precisely twice to the elementary age-group, at age 7 and 11. And in the opinion of a nation's teachers, that was twice too often. So they put their foot down, and said "no more."

Am I crazy to hope for a similar burst of revolutionary spirit from America's teachers?

Posted by: harpe | June 19, 2009 12:08 PM

I know anothermother, simply being brave and 'taking the plunge' would only the beginning of the story, and possibly one without a happy ending (weary sigh). The excessive teaching to the test issue will I am sure only be one of many that I will confront that I will have if I send my youngest somewhere other than hooker. BUt I am just so DONE with the whole 'special hooker' thing (yes I am generally pleased with the experience my kids have had, but its not THAT amazing) and, frankly, with some hooker parents who claim to be so progressive and concerned about the city, but fight tooth and nail to keep their own little school and neighborhood 'uncontaminated' (my word, not theirs) by the rest of the city.

Some of the changes you suggest in your last posting would make a difference, but ultimately the chicken and the egg have to march forward together, some parents would have to make the move before the more 'top down' changes bear fruit (and probably your having done that, even just for a few years, has, whether you know it or not, encouraged others to do the same). And as for Yale's input..... I don't know what the relationship is between Yale and the Hooker situation, but I am sure that Yale must have something to do with maintaining Hooker's status as a school that its professors/graduate students (who are also teachers) are happy to send their kids to... and thus don't demand higher salaries to pay for private school! Surely Yale must see that, at the very least, it would serve their interests to have two or three roughly 'Hooker type' schools for profs and grad students to send their kids to. Ideally of course Yale would have an interest in improving the lot of all the kids at every school in New Haven, but let's not get too dreamy!

Posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS | June 19, 2009 4:29 PM

AnotherMother, Harpe, etc.

Great comments - and energy around this vital topic. Take it from someone who has been watching and participating in the struggle to fix our schools for a loooong time, Mayo and DeStefano are finally on a promising path.

Whether they can stay on track is another question. But the sign are very positive. Listen to the mayor. For the first time he is saying: "Hold me accountable" Not only is this like a fresh breath of air from DeStefano, but it is RARE that ANY mayor stands up and asks us to look to him for results. He deserves a lot of credit for this.

I understand that the mayor has earned his sceptics. If you have read these pages for years, you won't find a harsher critic of the mayor and the supt. than me. But now that they have reversed course and gotten on track, we simply can't let our scepticism or even hard-boiled cynicism cloud our judgement.

The situation is complex due to the wide range of student needs in a city as diverse as is New Haven. But the overwhelming first priority is to lift the performance of ALL low-income, largely minority children. We will do this by, as the mayor says "building not a great school district, but a district of great schools".

Hang in there. The past is the past. Judge these people now by how they execute their plan. The time to take action as parents and voters has passed. We had the opportunity to find an opposing candidate for mayor and no one stepped up. And while you can always vote with your feet, we need you here now more than ever to help these two guys take on the political battles ahead.

Posted by: Westville Mom | June 19, 2009 4:46 PM

Last comment (for me), Bob, and you may have the last word: I doubt that there are enough "white" private school students in NH to create the "diversity" you imagine. (over 20,000 total in NHPS at present)
I don't adhere to your "diversity=success" prescription, so we will never agree and you will never convince me. People are people. The private schools and the suburbs are not to blame for NH's low standards. But 50+ years of Democrat monopoly ???
Actually, I like Rev. Ross-Lee's assessments. He has picked up the rock of "Liberalism" and exposed the vermin of "Hypocrisy" that lies beneath. It's about time someone did.

Posted by: stranger in a strange land | June 19, 2009 9:32 PM

When I first moved to New Haven I was floored by the segregation. Economic disparities follow racial lines here in the U.S. of A. and the only thing that will change 400 years of government endorsed racism is a change in your tax system. Local politics and initiatives can spread but you have to even out the wealth. A more egalitarian society is good for everyone. People in Canada pay 50% tax but you never hear of anyone complaining about it because you don't have 1 in 4 children living in poverty like you do here. You don't have 10,000 sq. foot homes either- but really, who needs 'em? You also don't have unsafe crappy schools.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | June 20, 2009 8:17 AM

Dear WM - I don't want the last word, but just to clarify since I think you have turned my comments into something entirely different. There are lots of problems in the public schools, for lots of reasons. People who send their children to private schools are making vewry personal decisions for lots of reasons. When a large segment of the population opts out of a country, a city, a school system, that's a problem. Not the whole problem, and I never said (and I'm sorry that you inferred), that those people are the cause or that they are at fault, since people leave for reasons. Nor do I beleave that a diverse school = a good school, just as small classes, lots of money, great buildings, or any other single factor can equal a good school. I could go on about why the 100 top schools list are dramatically skewed toward wealthy, homogeneous schools with lots of money (number of AP classes per student is a major factor, but that's a longer discussion), but, having read way too many studies, the remarkable thing is the lack of agreement about what makes a good school. The factors that most studies stress are preschool, principals, teacher support, peer group, family support and.... So, that's a lot of factors. I apologize if my posts implied that parents who choose public school are part of the problem. I do not believe that, but I do believe a lack of confidence in the system which results in so many parents choosing private school is part of the problem, not only for the schools, but for neighborhoods. The East Rock community went through and is still adversely affected by the fight over the siting of the Hooker middle school. Many people from the neighborhood testified at several public hearings. Public school and private school parents took opposing sides in a very dramatic and unpleasant way. Having been involved in amny issues of public engagement, I still believe the Hooker fight was one of the worst I have seen. In another part of the NHI, there's a story of Yul Watley and his success in West Rock. It took 11 years to move from serious conflict to that point, and there were many unpleasant moments. The Hooker middle school has some similarities. That is not to impugn anyone's intent, good will, or karma. People come to issues from different perspectives and, as this thread has shown, people express strong emotions in ways that do not always engage others. I regret that my posts have seemed to have that effect on you. As a last point, I also regret that the only way to engage is through a public forum, which is sometimes good and sometimes not so good. That's one of the problems with anonymity (I know - people have their reasons.) Do we know each other? I have no idea, but I agree you have the right to keep that knowledge to yourself. That's the rule of this forum. Still, I think it increases sarcasm and lessens dialogue.

Posted by: Bob Solomon | June 20, 2009 8:47 AM

Dear WM - I don't want the last word, but just to clarify since I think you have turned my comments into something entirely different. There are lots of problems in the public schools, for lots of reasons. People who send their children to private schools are making vewry personal decisions for lots of reasons. When a large segment of the population opts out of a country, a city, a school system, that's a problem. Not the whole problem, and I never said (and I'm sorry that you inferred), that those people are the cause or that they are at fault, since people leave for reasons. Nor do I believe that a diverse school = a good school, just as small classes, lots of money, great buildings, or any other single factor can equal a good school. I could go on about why the 100 top schools list are dramatically skewed toward wealthy, homogeneous schools with lots of money (number of AP classes per student is a major factor, but that's a longer discussion), but, having read way too many studies, the remarkable thing is the lack of agreement about what makes a good school. The factors that most studies stress are preschool, principals, teacher support, peer group, family support and.... So, that's a lot of factors. I apologize if my posts implied that parents who choose private school are part of the problem. I do not believe that, but I do believe a lack of confidence in the system which results in so many parents choosing private school is part of the problem, not only for the schools, but for neighborhoods. The East Rock community went through and is still adversely affected by the fight over the siting of the Hooker middle school. Many people from the neighborhood testified at several public hearings. Public school and private school parents took opposing sides in a very dramatic and unpleasant way. Having been involved in many issues of public engagement, I still believe the Hooker fight was one of the worst I have seen. In another part of the NHI, there's a story of Yul Watley and his success in West Rock. It took 11 years to move from serious conflict to that point, and there were many unpleasant moments. The Hooker middle school has some similarities. That is not to impugn anyone's intent, good will, or karma. People come to issues from different perspectives and, as this thread has shown, people express strong emotions in ways that do not always engage others. I regret that my posts have seemed to have that effect on you. As a last point, I also regret that the only way to engage is through a public forum, which is sometimes good and sometimes not so good. That's one of the problems with anonymity (I know - people have their reasons.) Do we know each other? I have no idea, but I agree you have the right to keep that knowledge to yourself. That's the rule of this forum. Still, I think it increases sarcasm and lessens dialogue.

Posted by: Katie Rohner | June 20, 2009 9:45 AM

Wow. Westville Mom ... you seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder about being forced into heavy debt because you felt obliged to send your kids to private school. If you weren't so bitter you might be able to simply acknowledge that, of course, when large numbers of people leave the public school system and enroll their children in private school there is a dramatic effect on that public school system. It's not the only effect that leads to a diminished public school system, but it's a big one.

When I moved to New Haven many years ago, one of the first things I was stunned by was the sharp private school/public school divide (a divide so palpable that I quickly noticed it even though I wasn't married yet or had children) and from the moment we decided to send our kids to public school, we were subject to condescending, patronizing, and just rude comments about our decision by people who have chosen the private school route. I don't question the decisions by others to send their kids to private school, so why do they have to always vocalize their disdain for our decision to send out kids to public school? I am amazed at how hostile some parents seem to be when they learn where our kids go to school -- and feel so open to expressing their thoughts about it. I can only attribute it to their own insecurities about their decision ... being self-described liberals who espouse the importance of a good and public education for all, but won't actually contribute to its livelihood. It's many of those same parents who fought so hard to keep Hooker Middle out of their neighborhood.

I am also shocked by Harpe's comments. I don't think many of us Hooker parents claim that our school is "amazing" -- we are well aware of its flaws, but we still believe in making it a thriving educational environment given certain constraints both curriculum-wise and facility-wise. I find it deeply offensive and troubling that you accuse Hooker parents of trying to ensure the school is "uncontaminated" by the outside. What a vicious condemnation with absolutely no evidence offered of what you mean by this. In fact, most of the posts do not offer any sustantiated facts or figures to back up the bitter invective that is being slung at Hooker, the NHPS system in general, and those who enroll their kids at Hooker. While I am certainly not an apologist for NHPS, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's try to refrain from sarcastically and anonymously flinging mud without backing it up a little with some evidence.

Hooker, like all the public schools teaches too much to the test as well and we have trouble keeping teachers just like anywhere else. The search for a principal was just like any other school search within the system -- it just so happens that the newly-hired principal's last position was a short stint abroad. And where you all get the idea that Yale gives a crap about Hooker and uses it as a recruiting tool is beyond me. It simply isn't true. We know many people recruited by Yale in the last five to ten years and there were no special tours of the building, secret slots reserved for a desired recruit, or even much of a mention of Hooker to these families. I know of many, in fact, who were given private tours of Foote, Hopkins, Cold Spring, and St. Thomas by faculty who had children there and were trying to entice the recruits by displaying the fabulous array of private school options -- that seems to be the surest way to get a commitment from a candidate with kids that Yale wants to recruit. Oh, and by the way, the wife of Yale's president signed a petition opposing the new middle school site on Everit Street, where she lives with her husband, and, while they did not get directly involved in the lawsuit to keep the school out of the neighborhood, he was decidely silent in any support of building Hooker Middle school in his neighborhood. If you think Hooker holds some special status within the Yale empire, guess again.

Posted by: Thomas Burns | June 26, 2009 11:23 PM

Hey fix-- Adamowski is a joke and he will leave Hartford worse off than before he came----but he will have benefited financially for his tenure and then move on to make more money while continuing his charade---
Get a clue---Hartford schools are the worst--why would we copy them----and New York, are you kidding me?? In the Post the other day they said that violent crime IN SCHOOLS was down 10%----only thousands of incidences this year--

Please show me an urban district who does it roight and we will copy it----oops there aren't any----

I am hoping that this new reform is REAL---and that we will show the nation how it's done----Tom