Why Breaking Down Large High Schools Reformed NYC Public Education
I recently mentioned in a previous article about New York City’s “Dirty Dozen”, which was a list of 12 schools that were considered the most violent in 2004. Violence here is defined by incidents reported annually.
I worked in the third most violent on that list, as a teacher and eventually as an Assistant Principal. We had almost 5000 students in that school, so it was enormous. As a teacher, I remember when I had an incident and ran to call the dean and when I opened the phone box located by the door — the phone was missing.
I remember running to the phone box after making the threat of, “Ok, I’ll call the dean.” and wondered why everyone laughed — until all I saw was the frayed cord that stuck out of the wall.
The students all knew this, and my only option for assistance was now null and void.
The building was shaped like a figure 8, but square. In each corner and in the middle of all 5 floors, were stairways. In 2004, when this article came out, on every floor and at every stairway, was a New York City School Safety Officer. These individuals were super heroes. They were police officers forced to work with students all day.
If you can’t think of anything harder than patrolling the streets — I’m sure being in a high school rivals the complexities.
I got to know almost all of the SSO’s (school safety officers) as I taught on 3 floors and in 4 different classrooms. I saw how hard their job was, because after a teacher or administrator couldn’t handle the situation anymore, these folks stepped in. They were not educators, they were officers — and they did what they could to keep peace and make everyone safe.
I’ll never write or say anything bad about them, because again — they were not educators, but they were still role models for the students and crucial to our school’s smooth daily operation.
In 2004, I was in my 4th year of teaching, and worked in a program that revolved around a pilot for small learning communities. This program was incredible, our students were seen as “special” because they were in the program — however it was public, accepted anyone, and just operated separately from the large school.
When the article came out and we all learned we were working in the 3rd most violent school in all of New York City, this was wild.
I remember the discussion in our weekly meeting that I had with my grade level team, which was also super new and different to be meeting with other teachers, not in your department, and weekly.
The coordinator informed us that the chancellor’s office wanted our program to be a model for what would be small schools. Our large comprehensive school would be broken into 4 smaller ones. I thought that was awesome, but upon hearing the reactions from the entire English department and our AP about this since word traveled so quickly about it — I was the only one that liked the concept.
Teachers didn’t like it, because it threatened their current job, knowing that the large school is going to break down into small ones. AP’s didn’t either for a similar reason, and shortly thereafter, we learned our principal was retiring. That article caused more disarray, and I hated the NY Post for publishing it.
I heard comments like, “So the solution is to hire 4 principals instead of 1, 4 sets of AP’s, and teachers to fully staff each school sounds way too expensive and not purposeful.” I also heard, “This is like when New York City got rid of the board of education, and created the Panel for Educational Policy,” which I did agree was a scam by just giving something old a new name.
Within the following year, we saw our top 2 floors occupied by small schools with new titles, former AP’s that were principals, and new teachers. However, what we also saw, was less NYPD School Safety Officers in the corners, as each of those schools had a better ratio of educator to student, and this began to impact incidents in the school.
The school safety officers didn’t really go up to those floors much, and were focusing on what was left of our old comprehensive site. This was perceived via excuses such as, “Those schools take the good kids and leave what’s left downstairs,” or “Those schools get more funding and we get what’s left.”
Haters began to hate, and yet education reform was evident.
Teachers who were under performing, were not able to get jobs at the newer schools. This was defined as new schools hired new teachers because they were cheaper. When I went to one of the small schools, I learned that those administrators hired the best teachers they could find, because training someone new was also costly.
The newness, and physical break down, created a micro-managed approach to schools, and students found that they knew the names of their teachers, and the teachers knew the students, even their family situations. Guidance counselors had lower ratios of students per counselor, and this made a tremendous impact on educating students holistically.
Only 3 years after that article came out, my once large comprehensive high school with 5000 students, broke into 4 schools, each having 500 students, and the remainder of the large comprehensive site which refused to close completely, decided it would be best to occupy the 2 lower levels of campus, and have 2000 students jammed in down there.
People in the community made stink about closing this school that has been open since 1939.
I can see the tradition and respect that wholeheartedly, but to see first hand the changes that it made in a students ability to be successful, healthy, and safe — triumphed over any tradition that was built upon what was, and not what is now.
Breaking down large schools into small ones works. Students are no longer numbers in the system. Police are replaced with educators that could work with students and help them best. When a school safety officer came by, it wasn’t good. When a kid was sent to the counselor, they were counseled and most likely a non-violent solution persisted. One that led to helping that student identify and solve the current issue. Not one that left 2 choices as options, without addressing any real purpose other than ensuring that rules were followed and never broken.
I know this created difficulties for educators who were left out and couldn’t get jobs in other schools, but do we want them teaching our students anyway?
Perhaps they were never developed or supported in a comprehensive setting, or perhaps they didn’t want it.
The point is, when the small school wave hit NYC, this transformed education. Career & Technical high schools opened up everywhere, and tapped student interests, instead of force feeding them what was always how it was done in the past.
