Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

Charter Schools Can't Suspend Their Way to Success


mulgrew classroom

Michael Mulgrew, the author (photo: UFT)


Children who miss 20 or more days of school in New York City have lost so much instruction time that they are classified as chronically absent, which studies have linked to lower test scores and higher dropout rates.

So it is hard to see the educational purpose behind Success Academy's suspending a special-needs 7-year-old for 45 days, even if some form of alternative instruction was provided. This one recent example is part of a much larger pattern, both for Success Academy and the larger charter school sector it is the leader of.

Sadly, Success Academy is far from the outlier in the charter sector in the use of suspensions as a punitive tool.

A 2016 study by the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the University of California, Los Angeles, found charters nationwide suspended African-American and special-needs students at a disproportionately higher rate than their white or non-disabled classmates. The report was the first national review of charter school discipline.

In New York City, although the charter school student population was less than 7 percent of the system's total enrollment, charter schools accounted for nearly 42 percent of all suspensions, according to a review by The Atlantic of 2014 state suspension data.

Charter schools accounted for 48 of the top 50 New York City schools with the highest suspension rates for the same year. The Icahn Charter #7 in the Bronx reported giving out 142 suspensions to its 99 students that year, the highest suspension rate in the city. Achievement First Crown Heights Charter reported issuing 200 suspensions to its roughly 940 students that same year.

Teachers know that there is a place for suspension of children who are dangerous to themselves or others, or who constantly make learning impossible for their classmates. The UFT fought to ensure that the system's new discipline policy included the ability for a principal to suspend even the youngest children, though the potential loss of learning time means that suspension should always be a last resort.

But we also know that it takes time, energy, and public scrutiny to move from punitive, after-the-fact discipline codes to pro-active, restorative practices that can change school climate. At the UFT, we have joined with the city Department of Education to create a package of training and techniques to help staff identify and deal with issues proactively, known as the Positive Learning Collaborative.

At schools enrolled for three years in this joint venture, suspensions are down, as are the kinds of incidents that used to trigger them. And perhaps more important, the satisfaction of children, staff, and parents in the schools is up.

Charters need to do similar work, and do it publicly to regain the trust of the public, particularly parents and students.

***
Michael Mulgrew is president of the United Federation of Teachers. On Twitter @UFT.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

After Major State Budget Investment, Time to Unify in Our Housing Fights


nyc hdc rendering

(NYC HDC rendering)


For more than a year there has been wrangling and discord among developers, housing advocates, organized labor, and our elected leaders over an agreement on spending for affordable housing. A “memorandum of understanding” was drafted, but a budget and legislative session came and went in Albany without a consensus.

Now, we finally have a state budget that gives us more than $2 billion in spending on housing. It will have its critics, but by and large this plan puts in front of us the resources and the political will to address the housing and community revitalization needs of cities large and small throughout New York.

This commitment of state resources is more critical than ever as we face a hostile federal budget that aims to eliminate housing programs that are integral to everyday New Yorkers, as well as those that provide safety nets and services to our most vulnerable citizens.

At The Community Preservation Corporation (CPC), small buildings have been our focus for more than four decades. What we’ve seen across our lending portfolio highlights the critical role they play in the stability of our neighborhoods, but also the challenges these properties face. They are where most low- and moderate-income renters live, and are an essential resource of natural affordability.

The state’s housing plan puts in place more than $60 million to help preserve this irreplaceable, yet often forgotten backbone of our housing stock.

Seventy-one percent of the multifamily buildings in the upstate markets CPC serves have fewer than 50 units. What’s striking is that 67 percent of units in these small buildings are in fair or poor condition. They tend to be older, more distressed, and their owners often lack the means to maintain their physical and financial health.
Why are they so important? The rents in these very same buildings are the most affordable in all markets. They are 16 percent below the average rent for their metro areas and 40 percent below the rent levels of the highest-quality buildings. State resources on this scale will be key in preserving and improving housing that is currently serving millions of New Yorkers, and ensuring that it will continue to serve millions more well into the future.

Supportive housing is one of the most compassionate, effective, and cost-efficient means to addressing homelessness. Section 8 has played a significant role in its funding, but with the program squarely in the crosshairs of the president’s budget, state funding will be key to continuing its production.

This deeply affordable housing provides stability and supportive services specifically tailored to the needs of at-risk populations such as formerly homeless military veterans, youth aging out of foster care, and those with mental illness who need additional support.

A joint report by New York City and State found that tenants of supportive housing spent fewer days in jail, homeless shelters, and state-operated psychiatric facilities. This can save taxpayers millions because these tenants are far less likely to need other publicly-funded programs such as government-subsidized health care and social services.

Governor Cuomo’s “Affordable New York” program, which replaces 421-a, will help jumpstart development of low- and moderate-income rental housing in working-class communities throughout New York City’s boroughs. This is essential in a city like New York where half of renters are rent-burdened – paying 30 percent or more of their income towards rent.

Contrary to the spotlight on luxury buildings in high-market neighborhoods, data shows that more than 64 percent of all residential units financed under the old 421-a program between 2010-2015 were created outside of Manhattan, most in smaller buildings.

Thousands of units of affordable and naturally affordable housing would not have been financially feasible and would not have been built without 421-a. Those properties are anchoring working-class communities, providing revenue to the city, and their construction, operation, and maintenance create jobs.

This plan makes good on the governor’s promise to provide an unprecedented level of state resources to address the housing challenges facing our state. It is time for the housing community to come together and recognize that we’re all on the same team. The federal budget, or lack thereof, is looming large over our efforts to strengthen our communities and serve those most in need. If we continue to fracture and fight amongst ourselves, the losers will be the New Yorkers who don’t have the luxury of waiting for us to get out of our own way.

***
Rafael E. Cestero is the president and CEO of The Community Preservation Corporation and former commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. On Twitter @communityp.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Time to Let New York Dance


choreographer

(photo: choreographer Blacka Di Danca)


New York City is experiencing a sonic boom. From electronic cumbia in the Bronx to thumping techno in an East Williamsburg warehouse to experimental sounds in a former Greenpoint luncheonette, the energy of the city’s diverse music cultures is at a creative and popular peak. At the grassroots level, a diffuse network of DIY arts spaces cultivates the next generation of musicians. These fiercely independent venues exist to create opportunities for emerging artists and new voices, offering a first show, a supportive crowd, and a sense of community.

But not everyone is feeling the good vibrations: archaic laws and a punitive bureaucratic mindset are stifling small, local venues that are already struggling to cope with skyrocketing rents. Given a severely lacking support structure for the city’s DIY music and art spaces, a single misstep can prove disastrous. In this environment, the selective enforcement of current rules and regulations serves to criminalize nightlife—dampening economic opportunity and making New York less safe.

One particularly draconian example, the Cabaret Law, was passed at the height of the Harlem Renaissance in a bid to curb the rise of jazz clubs in the prohibition era. In the words of the Committee on Local Laws, the aim was to rein in “the ‘wild’ stranger and the foolish native” by prohibiting restaurants and bars from allowing more than three patrons to dance without receiving a separate cabaret license. For more than 60 years, the law specifically banned the principal instruments used in jazz, until a 1986 ruling found that provision unconstitutional. Despite this overtly discriminatory origin, the law has remained in force to this day.

In addition to its redundancy—strict rules already govern noise, alcohol, crowds, and other late-night nuisances—the Cabaret Law continues to have a chilling effect on specific styles of music, encouraging local music and art spaces to book rock bands or folk performers instead of hip-hop artists or salsa musicians that might inspire the crowd to dance. Applying for a license involves a gauntlet of additional regulations and costs, including additional security, surveillance, operational, and recordkeeping requirements. The cost and complexity help explain why just 94 of the city’s 25,000-plus food service establishments currently hold a cabaret license.

This regulatory relic is just one example of the adversarial relationship that characterizes the city’s interactions with independent nightlife and local arts communities. Many DIY spaces never recover after accruing multiple violations and thousands of dollars in fines. Even modest fixes can be out of reach, especially for smaller spaces: changing a certificate of occupancy, applying for a public assembly permit, or undertaking renovations to comply with byzantine building codes all pose significant hurdles. The lost revenue from just a few days spent closed for repairs can mean the difference between making rent and risking eviction.

In a city where one experienced entrepreneur cites costs upward of $1 million to open a 100-capacity venue, it’s no surprise that artist- and youth-run spaces end up mired in a constant struggle to operate legally. The result is that the city’s small, local arts venues—which account for more than 12,000 jobs and $800 million in annual economic output—struggle to make ends meet.

Rising rents are a major contributing factor, but the city government presents obstacles of its own. In order to prepare for the onslaught of city agencies, DIY spaces are not only paying artists and staff, but also attorneys, expeditors, compliance consultants, and contractors to satisfy health, building, fire, water, gas, and electrical regulations. Faced with escalating costs, zoning pressures, and an enforcement-focused system of regulatory agencies, New York City’s status as an incubator of arts and culture is under threat.

The Center for an Urban Future’s Creative New York report found that at least 24 music venues closed between 2011 and 2015, with more DIY spaces, such as Palisades and Shea Stadium, shuttering in the past few months (although the latter is poised to return). A recent report from the Mayor’s Office of Entertainment and Media confirmed these findings, announcing that more than 20 percent of the city’s smaller music venues have closed over the past 15 years.

Sustaining independent music and nightlife means supporting efforts to create safer physical spaces. It is essential that all spaces comply with common sense safety rules, such as clear paths of egress and working fire extinguishers. But the existing financial and regulatory burden creates a two-tiered ecosystem, with fully licensed, for-profit venues operating aboveground while many artist-run or not-for-profit spaces are forced into the shadows. This has the paradoxical effect of pushing vital arts spaces further underground, making artists and patrons less safe, not better protected.  

New York needs a strong base of local arts venues to create opportunities for emerging artists and sustain the next generation of musicians, organizers, and cultural producers. The city should take steps to cultivate its grassroots music and nightlife venues, or risk undermining the foundation of its creative growth. The creative sector now employs roughly 300,000 New Yorkers, or 7 percent of all jobs in the city. And small clubs, bars, and music venues account for thousands of additional jobs, fueled by live performances every night of the week.

A strategy to support these entrepreneurial endeavors could include free or subsidized legal advice and architectural services for artists and venues; a grantmaking or matching-funds program for urgent safety improvements and public assembly permits; a program to provide mock inspections to local music and art venues; and a nightlife liaison inside City Hall—an approach successfully undertaken by some of New York’s cultural rivals, including San Francisco and Berlin.

Perhaps the simplest step in the right direction is to repeal the Cabaret Law. After nine decades of antagonism toward nightlife, the time has come to let New York dance.

***
Eli Dvorkin is managing editor of the Center for an Urban Future and a founding member of the Silent Barn. On Twitter @nycfuture.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years