In case you haven’t seen, we’ve put up a fairly comprehensive FAQ about G&T scores over on the G&T homepage. One important piece of information: the DOE has extended the application deadline for eligible students to May 14.

The extension gives families who originally received applications with mistakes a chance to think about their revised applications, which the DOE spent a pretty penny overnighting to them earlier this week. Of course, the five-day extension also means it may take applicants a little while longer in “early June” to find out where they’ve been placed.

The Post and the Daily News today have stories about families in Staten Island and parts of Queens and the Bronx who feel cheated: their rising kindergarteners met the cutoff for G&T eligibility but their districts have no programs to accommodate them. Instead, they’ll have to test again next year for entrance to G&T programs that start in 1st grade. These parents’ frustration is totally understandable, but I do want to point out that the DOE made it clear through the whole process that entry grades to G&T programs would not change for next year. As always, the DOE could communicate with parents better, but on this count it made a sincere effort, sending reminder letters to families in those districts after they received their score reports, and maintained a straight story. Of course, even a straight story from the DOE doesn’t make things too much easier for parents who feel shut out.

One final note: We know all of the G&T program options in many districts. But if you qualified in districts 4, 7-12, 16-21, 23-24, or 26-31, please tell us what schools will be hosting G&T programs next year!

UPDATE: Thanks for sending in the lists for districts 11, 20, 24, 26, and 28. We’re still looking for 4, 8-10, 12, 17-19, 27, and 29-31.

What has cost the DOE as much as ARIS in the last couple of years? Teachers who aren’t working, according to a report being released today by the New Teacher Project, a non-profit organization that helps school districts find and train new teachers.

The report, titled “Mutual Benefits: New York City’s Shift to Mutual Consent in Teacher Hiring,” takes a look at the effects of the 2005 UFT-DOE contract, which ended the practice by which older teachers could “bump” younger teachers from their schools and instituted a system where teachers who are “excessed,” or released from their positions at schools, continue to earn tenure and be paid while they apply for new positions — or not. The report concludes that the practice of “mutual consent” has resulted in teachers being happier with their positions but that the growing pool of excessed teachers is becoming a financial burden on the system. Half of the 600 teachers who were excessed in 2006 and early 2007 who did not find a new position did not apply for any jobs through the DOE’s online hiring system, according to the report, to the tune of $81 million by the end of this school year.

Many of the report’s findings are likely verifiable, but it’s important to note that the New Teacher Project has an organizational interest in making sure there are positions for new teachers and funds free to pay them — it runs the city’s Teaching Fellows program. Evaluated in this context, the report’s central recommendation — that excessed teachers be removed from the payroll after a “reasonable period” and allowed “for a certain number of years” to be able to return to a teaching position at the same salary and seniority level — reads like opportunism, not thoughtful education policy. And it makes Mayor Bloomberg’s use of the report as a reason to reopen contract negotiations with the UFT positively inexcusable; he is planning to seek permission to remove from city payroll teachers who have gone without a job for 12 months.

The Times notes that Chancellor Klein has characterized most teachers in the reserve pool as undesirable or unwilling to look for work. We don’t know exactly how many of the non-working excessed teachers fit that bill. But we do know that with budget cuts making it financially stressful for schools to maintain experienced teaching staffs, principals must make hard choices to be able to afford to hire senior teachers. And with a cadre of first-year teachers always at the ready (thanks in part to the New Teacher Project), the incentives to make those choices are slim. That’s why the UFT earlier this month filed an age discrimination lawsuit against the DOE. In times like this, senior teachers need more protections, not a new rule that removes them from the system so long as schools can get along without them.

And if you’re worried about unqualified teachers keeping their jobs, don’t be — the Teacher Performance Unit is on the job.

Through their anxiety — a few parents said the experience of testing and waiting … and waiting may land them in therapy — many parents left sane, thoughtful comments on this weekend’s post about G&T admissions. Here’s a sampling:

From parents whose perspective returned not too long after receiving (or not receiving) their envelopes:

Congratulations to all of these kids on such an outstanding job. I do not believe the test was made child-friendly. The test administrator was a stranger, and I do not believe that the questions would be repeated more than once. (think about that.) I believe it was a difficult test, so if your child passes, they really gave it their best and if not in the 90%, that child is still bright just to sit there to attempt that test. Good luck parents!!

Resolved myself to thinking that we aren’t in and made my peace with it. It’s a beautiful day and I’m going to go and spend time with my beautiful, intelligent daughter and enjoy her for who she is not what she scores on a test.

And from parents who rightly have a whole new set of anxieties, despite their children’s high scores:

I am only willing to consider one of the G&T schools in our district but would really prefer one of the citywide schools. I don’t know how realistic our chances are for getting into a citywide school since (as ridiculous as it sounds) my DD only scored in the 98%tile.I am in district 25, my daughter is entering kindergarten and scored in the 98th percentile. I want to make a united front on the fact that there are no new “K” programs in our district. … Let’s get as many people on board with this and make an aggressive, united move to change this system which is failing our children.

From parents with radical notions about the DOE:

Don’t get me wrong - as the parent of a public schooler as well as a teacher in district three, I am no fan of the DOE. But in this case, they are clearly looking to improve schools for the greatest number of children, rather than the select few. … Here’s a radical notion, what if, regardless of a child’s score all of us as parents made a commitment to improving our local schools? Now that would be radical…..I wouldn’t be bashing DOE all that much. They are under tremendous pressure to do something, and I think the fact that the testing is open now to the whole city as opposed to those who were willing to spend enormous amount of money on private psychologists who tested for Anderson and Hunter is a great leap forward. It wasn’t exactly a smooth operation, and there will be always tons of people who are very unhappy. I think the thought process and the intentions of Board of Ed were good.

And from parent Chris Johnson, who understands how hard it is to keep up with what’s going on at the DOE:

I am in Egypt and just spoke with my wife and our daughter apparently is 90%+ - she will fax me the letter. NOTE: Thank you InsideSchools for providing us parents with such a useful forum. I am sending another contribution and encourage others to do the same. (InsideSchools is a non-profit organization that needs every contribution, no matter how small.)

If you, like Chris, want to help Insideschools be able to continue to provide this kind of forum, here’s how to make a tax-deductible donation. Thank you!

Most of the folks who could have answered your questions were out of their offices on Friday, but I am working on getting responses and as soon as I do I will share them with you. Until I can find out more, here’s a roundup of what we already know, thanks in great part to your comments.

• We know where programs will be housed next year (see below for lists of schools in some districts); this information was part of the application mailed to families whose children scored in the 90th percentile or above.

• We know that in many districts in Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx, gifted programs continue to start in 1st grade, meaning that 90th percentile+ scorers entering kindergarten are without options (or are able to apply only to citywide schools if they scored in the 97th percentile or above). Some Queens parents didn’t understand that the DOE didn’t plan to change programs’ entry years and now feel shut out and angry.

• We know that siblings get priority for admission; a lower-scoring sibling who qualifies for admission will beat out a higher-scoring child.

• We know that families must rank all district programs in order to be guaranteed a spot in one of them; applications are due May 9.

• We know that the Office of Pupil Transportation covers transportation costs for children who live at least half a mile’s walk from their school when it’s within their district. For elementary students, this often comes in the form of a yellow bus as long as the school has busing. The DOE doesn’t provide any busing across borough lines.

• Yet again, we see that standardized tests can be capricious, especially for 4 year olds: some kids did extremely well on one of the two gifted assessments, but not the other, despite their skills, and according to parent comments, some children who made it to the second round of Hunter admissions didn’t make the gifted cut this year.

• We know that when the DOE spokeperson emailed me Wednesday afternoon to say that letters hadn’t yet been mailed, he must have been misinformed, because letters began arriving on Thursday. (Or maybe the mail is really that fast?)

• And we know, as we have long known, that it’s hard for parents to get a straight answer from the DOE. In the comments on our last post, different parents reported getting different answers to the same questions when calling DOE officials, and one asked, “Why do they all have a different story?”

Where will district G&T programs be housed?
In District 1: PS 19 and PS 110
In District 2: PS 11, 77, 111, 116, 124, 126, and 130
In District 3: PS 9, 145, 163, 166, 185, and 191
In District 5: PS 129 and PS 154
In District 6: PS 98 and PS 153
In District 7: None
In District 11: PS 121 and PS 153
In District 13: PS 3, 9, 20, and 282
In District 14: PS 132
In District 15: PS 1, 10, 32, 38, and 230
In District 16: None
In District 18: PS 114, 115, 208, 276, 279
In District 20: PS 102, 104, 176, 185, 204, and 229
In District 22: PS 52, 152, 193, 195, 206, 207, 217, 222, 236, 277, and 312
In District 23: None
In District 24: PS 16, 91
In District 25: PS 21, 32, 165, and 209
In District 26: PS 18, 115, 188, and 202
In District 28: PS 101, 117, 144, 174

It’s the middle of school vacation week, which means it’s the perfect time for the DOE to send out important letters — letters that some Insideschools readers consider potentially life-altering. Did you get your G&T score notification letter today?

We’d love to see a copy of the letter, if you can scan and email it to us. Thanks and relax!

Parent coordinators are increasingly unavailable by phone, according to a report released recently by the Public Advocate’s office, where staffers called 100 parent coordinators after school hours, only to leave messages for the vast majority of them. Many of those messages — 71 percent of those left by staff members posing as prospective parents, according to the Post — were never answered. When the Public Advocate’s office conducted a similar study in 2005, 50 percent of parent coordinators responded to calls.

Parent coordinators are supposed to be available around the clock, and the DOE is supposed to provide them with a cell phone that should remain on all evening and on weekends. But over time, parent coordinators have lost their phones, their phones have broken, and departing parent coordinators have failed to hand their phones over to their replacements. I’ve had little trouble reaching parent coordinators during school hours by calling schools’ main numbers and asking for them. But reaching them after school or by cell phone exclusively (if indeed that’s what the Public Advocate’s office tried to do) sounds like a different beast.

Of course, the real issue is that which a District 4 parent advocate notes in the Post: “You talk to a lot of answering machines when you deal with the DOE. … No return calls, no-pick-up calls - it’s true.”

Today’s word from the DOE: “Letters haven’t gone out yet. They will go out later this week,” according to a DOE spokesperson who just wrote to me. Our collective mailbox check can continue — please keep sending in your helpful comments!

Bad news for critics of the citywide cell phone ban in schools: Yesterday, a state appeals court upheld the ban, saying that “the department has a rational interest in having its teachers and staff devote their time to educating students and not waging a ‘war’ against cell phones.”

The author of the opinion also wrote, “If adults cannot be fully trusted to practice proper cell phone etiquette, then neither can children” — but that to me sounds like grounds for an etiquette lesson, not a costly rule that inconveniences families and causes students to feel alienated and persecuted.

Of course, many families won’t let the ban stop them from sending their kids to school with a cell phone. Louise at Only the Blog Knows Brooklyn, for example, recently wrote that she’s contemplating getting her soon-to-be-6th grader a cell phone to provide security during the trip to and from middle school next year.

After great uncertainty about dates — at first it was supposed to be the end of March, then April 18, then the end of this month — we’re hearing that the first G&T letters have gone home. Have you checked your mailbox today? What’s the word at your school and in your neighborhood?

UPDATE: I just wanted to note that we are not at all sure letters have actually gone home anywhere — so don’t be alarmed if you haven’t gotten anything!

Ever since New York Sun columnist Lenore Skenazy wrote a column earlier this month about why she let her 9-year-old son travel alone on the subway, parents around the city have had little else to talk about — or at least they’ve made room in their G&T and kindergarten admissions discussions to ponder whether Skenazy is a hero or a lunatic.

The reason for the journey? Skenazy’s son wanted to be more independent, and she wanted to illustrate that the city is safe for children, no matter what their overprotective parents may think. The outcome? Armed with a Metrocard, a subway map, $20, and change for a phone call, her son made it home just fine from Bloomingdale’s, “ecstatic with independence.”

Skenazy is planning to let her son find his way back from Queens sometime soon, per his request. What about you — would you be comfortable executing this experiment? Your kid would probably thank you. Last year, a Clinton 6th grader argued on Insideschools, “Parents – we know what we’re doing. We’re city kids after all. So think about it — and let your kids roam a little more freely for a while.” Of course, his mother didn’t agree.

Update: Skenazy has launched Free Range Kids, a site “for anyone who thinks that kids need a little more freedom and would like to connect to people who feel the same way.”

After all of the debate on this blog last week over school admissions and the headaches the process causes, I was wondering whether it is actually getting harder to get into desirable schools in Manhattan than it used to be. The answer appears to be both yes and no.

On the one hand, Districts 2 and 3 are adding population far faster than they are adding school seats. According to a report released last week by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s office, in four areas at risk for overcrowding, city officials approved new residential buildings that could add as many as 2,300 children to the neighborhoods’ schools — but added only 143 school seats in those areas. As those buildings get finished and families move in, school admissions pressure can only heat up.

But at the same time, the recent change in G&T admissions policy actually increased the percentage of children in districts 2 and 3 who meet eligibility requirements. As Eduwonkette noted in the comments to an earlier Insideschools blog post last week, she estimates that the percentage of children in District 2 classified as gifted increased this year from 7.1 to 15.2 percent; in District 3: an increase from 13.8 to 22.3 percent. So while the pressure may be on for neighborhood school admission, more families in these areas may have the option to choose a district-wide G&T program.

I’ve spent considerable time contemplating issues like class size, teacher quality and the importance of after school programs and art and music curriculums in middle school, first for my 7th grader and now for my soon-to-be-6th grader.

I probably should have spent more time checking out shoes.

Apparently shoes – what brand you wear and how many pairs you have — really matter in middle school, at least that’s what my 7th grader tells me. And his skateboarding little brother isn’t far behind.

It’s no longer okay to lace up any old pair of $20 sneakers and wear them till they are trashed.

My public school kids have somehow been tuned into websites where they can browse through thousands of cool and colorful high-end brands or design and customize their own Nikes. They’ve discovered skateboard shops stocked with DCs and Elements and other brands of sneakers that easily cost $85 or more.

My middle schooler has also brought home the idea that it’s not enough to have ONE or TWO really cool pair of sneakers. You are to be pitied, my 7th grader warned me, if you wear the same pair of sneakers over again. Same goes with those pricey hooded sweatshirt jackets.

When I ask about the day — hoping to catch a small tidbit about an interesting lesson, a book, an exciting moment in history — I’m more likely to get a plea for new sneakers and a reminder of the horrific humiliation involved in wearing the same pair each day.

I don’t have any solutions or advice here (beyond putting your middle schoolers to work so they can buy their own shoes) but if you are just beginning to think about touring middle schools, you might want to shift your eyes downward a bit toward the footwear – and start saving up just in case.

Read all of Liz Willen’s Middle School Muddle

Here’s one way to deal with the disheartening and overwhelming school admissions process in New York City: don’t apply.

A growing number of the city’s families who are choosing to homeschool are middle-class black families who believe the options open to them won’t sufficiently challenge or support their children, particularly their boys, according to an article in the Village Voice. Instead, those parents present an enriched curriculum, often with an Afrocentric orientation, in a setting that’s free from bullying and other negative social pressures. There are downsides, of course — one parent has to give up working, school supplies and enrichment activities cost money, and it can be hard for kids to make friends — but according to the Voice, more black parents every year think homeschooling pays off in academic achievement, safety, and self-esteem.

I’ve always thought that New York City would be a great place to homeschool — it’s sort of absurd that in a city with such deep cultural, artistic, and academic resources, kids sit in classrooms all day. But homeschooling, like any other alternative school choice, should be a positive choice, not a means to escaping schools that can’t meet kids’ academic and social needs.

On one of our earlier posts about the changes to G&T admissions, Insideschools blog reader Crimson Wife commented:

The mess in the NYC G&T programs and the ridiculous competition for private school slots is a major reason why my [husband] accepted a position in one of his firm’s branch offices rather than its Manhattan headquarters.The bureaucrats need to know that the situation is deterring families from living in the city.

What a sad reality — and there is a growing perception that this truly is the reality. Monday’s Times had a column titled “Loving a City, but Hating a School System” about the challenges families face negotiating school admissions run by a DOE that’s “withholding, mercurial and unable to commit.” The column describes how, because the DOE regularly changes admissions rules and timelines, parents devise contingency plans for every admissions scenario. These plans often include moving on short notice within the city or out of it.

Although some might like it, the DOE is under no obligation to create a seat in gifted programs or desirable schools for every middle-class family that seeks one. But the DOE has perfected its ability to make and enforce policies without showing any concern for their affect on individual children and families. This attitude is offensive to everyone. But only some can respond by opting out, and for the system — and the city — to thrive, it needs to attract and retain educated, middle-class families who want to send their kids to the public schools.

All families seem to be asking is that the DOE stick to its own rules, give fair warning when a rule could change, and not penalize those who made plans based on yesterday’s rules. That doesn’t sound like too much to expect.

At about half of all city high schools, the only foreign language offered is Spanish, creating a challenge when, as is often the case, many students are already fluent Spanish speakers, according to a new article in City Limits.

What do high schools do with those students? “The schools design classes in Spanish for Spanish speakers,” says Maria Santos, chief of the DOE’s Office of English Language Learners and Foreign Languages, in the article. “They focus on developing more of their literacy in Spanish.” Sounds like a great plan — but the article’s author didn’t speak to any students, so I’m left wondering whether this is true. Many of the high schools I’ve visited take advantage of native Spanish speakers’ language proficiency to let them place out of fulfilling the state’s one-year foreign language requirement, and then fill their schedules with more English and math class time. I’d be willing to bet that this happens even in many of the high schools that offer instruction in French, Italian, Russian, and other languages. And that’s a far cry from taking AP Spanish literature classes.

After spending much of last week thinking at gifted and talented programs, I thought it was time to turn my attention to kids for whom academic achievement doesn’t come so easily. The Daily News helped this weekend by taking an on-the-ground look at the new 8th grade promotion policy. Although the policies in grades 3, 5, and 7 are supposed to protect against this, sometimes kids in those grades pass all of their classes and one of the state tests but just can’t pass the other, the article says. “I’m getting left back for one subject,” says a second-year 7th grader in the article. “I was doing my homework and stuff. I just didn’t get math.” Will the safeguards in the 8th grade promotion policy be enough to prevent students from being held over unnecessarily — or for the third time?

Yoav Gonen has a short piece in today’s Post with more details on the numbers of students applying and qualifying for G&T classes for the fall. His numbers (which vary from those reported in the Times yesterday) show that District 2 will likely see several new G&T programs this fall; it had the most students qualifying, at 517, but currently there are only five district G&T programs.

In addition, the Post’s graphic showing the districts with the most and fewest children qualifying points out vast disparities. In District 2, 28 percent of applicants tested at the 90th percentile or higher; in District 3, the percentage was even higher, at 30 percent. But in District 23 in Brooklyn, only 3 percent of students tested reached the cutoff for inclusion.

Gonen writes that three districts won’t have their own G&T kindergartens this fall, and eight districts will likely have only one G&T program. The DOE says equal access to testing is a move toward greater equity in G&T enrollment, but the numbers appear to say that equal access to testing may actually heighten inequities — and that, as we all expected, socioeconomic status and access to test prep continue to be key determinants for G&T admission.

Earlier this week, a blogger at The Chancellor’s New Clothes took aim at Credit Recovery classes, where students who have failed classes can “recover” those credits by completing makeup assignments over the course of a few days. The teacher writes:

[Students] are earning credit in a course that they failed because they deserved to fail. And they will be making it up in 9 hours.So what are we telling our students? What are we telling those students who decide that coming to class or doing work is not important? What are we telling those students who work hard every day for their grades and their credit?

It looks like this teacher is not alone in asking these questions. In today’s Times, Elissa Gootman and Sharona Coutts write that educators citywide are concerned about the Credit Recovery option and that the State Education Department is investigating whether the short classes are in fact legal, since “seat time” is one criterion it sets, along with subject mastery, for earning credits.

Gootman and Coutts collected anecdotes and evidence of Credit Recovery classes from dozens of schools around the city. At Wadleigh in Harlem, a student who had to write three essays to get credit for a course he rarely attended said, “I’m grateful for it, but it also just seems kind of, you know, outrageous. … There’s no way three essays can possibly cover a semester of work.” At Franklin K. Lane in Brooklyn, posters advertised, “If you failed a class, don’t despair … turnaround your 55 into a 65 in 6 weeks!!! Ask your teacher for details!!!”

Klein is on the defensive in the article, saying that these anecdotes (plus others) don’t add up to cause for concern that the city is juking its graduation statistics. He says there is “no basis to suggest that improper credit recovery has affected graduation rates” — the DOE doesn’t keep statistics on the subject.

What of the Wadleigh principal who allowed the farcical classes and whose Credit Recovery guidelines are now the subject of state investigation? She’s the city’s first executive principal, given the reins of a troubled high school in February along with a $25,000 bonus for taking on the assignment. She told the Times the Credit Recovery work packets were “just as rigorous as courses they would have taken sitting in the classroom every day with a teacher, or even more rigorous.” Sounds like Wadleigh is truly a model for other high schools around the city, right? And could the DOE really not find anyone for the executive principal position who wasn’t under investigation for promoting rules that skirted state law?

I have visited lots of schools and I think there are good things happening in many of the city’s high schools. But when I read an article like this one, I wonder whether all of Joel Klein’s reforms are only building a house of cards.

The Times has some interesting district-by-district G&T numbers in its coverage today of the sudden change in G&T admissions criteria.

First, the Times is reporting that 3,000 children will score high enough to be guaranteed seats in kindergarten and 1st grade in the fall. This is significantly more than the “more than 2,300″ estimated in the DOE’s press release yesterday and the 2,400 the DOE says are currently enrolled in the entry grades of G&T programs.

The Times reports that there are actually 4,649 students enrolled in G&T kindergarten and 1st grades right now, and that next year 4,916 students will be eligible for seats in those grades, either because they scored high enough or because they are already enrolled in a G&T kindergarten. (In some districts, gifted programs begin in kindergarten; in others, they begin in 1st grade. Children entering both grades citywide are guaranteed a seat if they meet the new standard. Read more about G&T programs. )

Also in the Times article: District 7 in the South Bronx wouldn’t have been able to field a gifted program next year had the 95th percentile cutoff stood — only five children would have qualified. Under the new rules, 13 children qualify — so the district’s kindergarten G&T landscape will shrink from two schools to one, where classes will be very small. Kids in District 16 won’t be so lucky; the Times reports that even under the relaxed standard only five kids qualify for G&T, so they will have to travel to neighboring districts if they want to take advantage of their test-earned right.

And some surprising news: While District 22’s kindergarten G&T programs will be slashed by at least two-thirds for the fall, there could be as many as 60 percent more children in G&T programs in District 3 — the Times reports that 310 kids tested at the 90th percentile or higher, compared to 192 students currently enrolled in the entry grades. Still no word about District 2.

After months of bad budget news from both the state and the city, here’s a big piece of excellent news: the State Assembly just passed a budget that restores all of the cuts the state had made to the city’s schools!

The city’s schools are now set to receive a $643 million budget increase as part of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity settlement; previously, Governor Spitzer announced he would reduce that increase by $350 million. The restoration of aid, which comes after months of intense lobbying and protest, should let principals who are deciding which services to eliminate breathe a little easier. But Mayor Bloomberg’s cuts, which could amount to as much as 8 percent of next year’s budget, still stand.

Confirming rumors floating earlier this week, the DOE has just announced that it will guarantee seats in gifted and talented programs in their entry grades to all children scoring at the 90th percentile or higher on the BSRA and OLSAT. The new G&T policy approved by the Panel for Education Policy earlier this year required children to score at the 95th percentile; the PEP will approve the change at a special meeting tomorrow morning, according to a DOE press release. Eligible children will receive preference at their older siblings’ school.

Letters go home around April 18, giving parents of eligible students a few weeks to rank programs and assess their chances of admission to citywide programs before their preference forms are due May 9.

According to the press release, the DOE is anticipating offering 2,300 seats for the entry grades for the fall, almost as many as currently exist in those grades. The press release also says that the proposed change will almost double the number of students who qualify for gifted programs. I think it’s safe to assume that the DOE decided it wanted to avoid the outcry from families who would have been shut out and from schools that would have lost their gifted programs.

At the same time, it’s clear from the DOE’s press release that even with this change, some districts might not have enough eligible students to field a gifted program. The PEP tomorrow is expected to approve a reduction in the number of students required for a program, from 10 to eight. Still, the DOE notes that “families that live in districts without sufficient numbers of qualified students will be asked to rank programs in nearby districts.”

The change is good news for districts 3 and 22, where schools have been concerned about the prospect of having their gifted programs cut. But it introduces an interesting situation for other districts, such as District 2, where significant numbers of students are expected to qualify but where existing gifted programs are few and far between. This policy revision could hasten a culture change in those districts.

Over at the Insideschools high school forum, user LeonDMatthew describes what happened earlier this week when the mobile scanning unit showed up at his school:

I came into school today and was surprises to see the police presence. I knew what was happening we were being scanned. This time I was determined to keep my belongings but was unsuccessful. I was told that if I did not surrender my cellphone and zune (like and i-pod), I would be handcuffed and they will be forcefully taken. So I surrendered them. While my belongings were being bagged and tagged I voiced my opinions to the school aid. I said “I can understand if they were taken because I was caught using them but the scanning and threatening and all the commotion were unnecessary.” All he said was this is what the principle says and I’m doing my job. I also petitioned to him all of the “what ifs” I could think of. For example I mentioned an incident that happened last week when there was a gang shoot-out in front of my school, but still no cigar. I was told my belongings would be returned on Thursday. What do you think? Was I and my fellow students wronged today? Please tell me what are your opinions about the whole no cell phone policy I want to know what parents are thinking. Please give me some adult insight.

So, adults, what can we tell LeonDMatthew? Hope you’re not caught without a cell phone next time gang violence flares up in your neighborhood? Shut up and obey the security guards — it’s the only way you’ll be able to get to class? There has to be a better way to deal with school safety.

Five years after the Leadership Academy was created to train new principals, the DOE is going to start to pick up the bill for it. Until now, the experimental program was supported with private money. But now, citing an internal study that found Leadership Academy graduates to outperform other principals in student test score gains, the DOE says the program is successful enough that it’s willing to foot the bill — which could add up to about $20 million a year. Almost 200 of the city’s current principals went through the training program, which has been criticized for focusing more on the logistics of principalship than the pedagogy and for accepting teachers with only a few years of classroom experience for a fast-track to school leadership.

Here’s where an independent research verification group, an idea that’s been batted around for the next iteration of mayoral control, could play an important role. It’s entirely possible that Leadership Academy grads are more skilled than other principals. But we just don’t know, and no DOE analysis could satisfy my skepticism. The DOE has an interest in making Leadership Academy principals look successful, so those principals might have received assistance in addition to the academy training. In addition, an independent research board might design an experiment that looked at variables other than test scores, which of course do not make up the entirety of what principals are charged to do.

And anyone sitting outside Tweed Courthouse could point out the frustration some might feel to see the DOE taking on a new $20 million a year commitment while simultaneously cutting funds for schools and for principals to use in carrying out their jobs.

Man, the DOE just can’t keep its mind made up about anything, can it? When DOE officials announced the new policy for admission to gifted and talented programs earlier this year, they were emphatic that research has proven that gifted programs are useful only for students who score in the 95th percentile or above on certain standardized tests. But now the Daily News is reporting that the DOE might be considering children in the 90th percentile and higher.

The Daily News speculates that “officials may be reluctant to exclude large numbers of children” — more than 50,000 kids tested for G&T this spring. If the rumor turns out to be true, I’ll wager that the change was made not because of the number of students who would be excluded with the higher cutoff but because of where those students live. In some districts that haven’t had robust G&T or test prep cultures, too few students might have scored at the 95th percentile or higher to field an entire class. That wouldn’t look too good for the DOE, which explained the policy change as an attempt to create equity across districts.

And perhaps the DOE is responding to the anger of parents and community leaders in districts where the new standard would almost certainly cut down on existing gifted programs, such as District 22 in Brooklyn. Their frustration and anger are nothing, of course, compared to that which the DOE can expect from parents whose kids narrowly missed the cut for G&T, no matter the cutoff ultimately used; letters will go home by the middle of this month, several weeks later than originally planned.

To provide public school students with the kinds of activities popular in private and suburban schools, we’ve got Chess-in-the-Schools, StreetSquash, and youth league soccer in Harlem. Now we learn that cricket recently became the DOE’s newest PSAL sport. It’s only a matter of time before pole-vaulting becomes a right, not a privilege, for the city’s public school students.

Last week, all 85,000 8th graders who applied for public high school found out where they were matched. This process is nerve-wracking for all, but it’s worst for the nearly 8,000 children who didn’t get a high school placement at all. Over at Insideschools, we’ve got instructions and school suggestions for families who are still looking for a high school; applications for the supplemental admissions round are due a week from today.

Unfortunately, our best advice is little consolation for kids who have been burned by a process that seems to favor the academic elite and struggling students over many kids whose mid-80s averages and on-grade-level test scores do little to reflect their talents, interests, and personalities.

There is one way to get answers and explanations about the middle school choice process.

It requires taking a deep breath, agreeing not to try to game the system and ignoring the “I heard this” rumors.

It involves going straight to the source: Jimmy Bueschen, the school choice coordinator whose jurisdiction includes District 2.

For the last 10 years, Bueschen has patiently explained middle school choice to countless elementary school parents. Every year he hears parents cry: “This is too much for 10 year olds!”

He also tries to quell rumors from parents who “heard this” about a change in the process, a new rule or deadline. Most are false. He is quick to tell parents who want to know if putting their second choice first is a better strategy that the answer is no, never.

Bueschen was kind enough to go over all the answers to questions I posed in a recent post, although he reminded me that he’d addressed just about every one of my questions in his excellent and very careful presentation to my child’s elementary school, where he pointed out that 80 percent of kids get into their first or second choice.

Those are pretty comforting odds. So how did I get confused? Perhaps by listening to multiple voices and rumors? Also, many of the schools we visited during tours do things differently, so what holds true for one school doesn’t hold true for the next, so it is easy to get somewhat muddled.

For the record, here are some of Bueschen’s answers to frequently asked questions, including mine.

Q. How seriously do middle schools take the fourth grade state tests?
A. The tests are part of multiple criteria schools used, including lateness and absences. There were cutoff scores at one point. There are no longer cutoff scores.

Q. Do schools really look at report cards, even if there are just checks and no grades?
A. If they ask for them, yes. Lots of report cards don’t contain grades.

Q. Will middle schools really have time to evaluate hordes of first choice candidates?
A. Of course. That’s part of what they do.

Q. If they give a test, how much will it count?
A. There are multiple criteria. Of course, you would think it holds a bit more weight because their screening may be based on the theme of their school. It’s up to the school to decide. Schools have different themes they may want students to demonstrate an interest in, like writing, science or technology.

Q. Will be child be screened at both his first and second choice? We all heard this might happen.
A. They will be screened (which can mean an interview, a test, participation in a project) at their first choice. The second choice school may do screening before they accept students in the second round – which means after they have accepted those who listed them as first choice.

Q. If they don’t hear from their second choice, does that mean they got into their first choice?
A. It’s possible, but it’s not over till it’s over. A person can get interviewed by first, second and third and STILL get their first choice. Our goal is for everyone to have their first choice. You could hear from the second choice school and still get into your first choice.

Q. Should we have prepared portfolios or letters of recommendation about our children?
A. Only if asked by the school. They likely won’t have time to read them.

Q. When will we find out?
A. Early May.

Finally, Bueschen has a reminder for parents who complain that the process is too much: The alternative is to pack everyone off to zoned schools – something no one wants. The best way to reach Bueschen is via email: jbuesch@schools.nyc.gov. He gets hundreds of calls at 212-356-3788 and does his best to answer.

Read all of Liz Willen’s Middle School Muddle

In honor of April Fools’ Day, I’d like to direct your attention toward some of the high quality satire of New York City schools that’s out there on the web. But be careful: as with much satire, these links are so close to reality that they almost aren’t funny.

• Billionaires for Education Reform describes Smellington Worthington III’s attempts to uncover “the best ways to train the great unwashed.” Smellington seems to be on hiatus right now as he explores ways to profit off of the city’s schools, but his past entries — and those of his wife, Muffy — are worth a read.

• For more than a year, Gary Babad has been contributing satirical news stories to the NYC Public School Parents blog. Nothing, from the cell phone ban to ARIS to school pizza parties, escapes Babad’s cutting wit.

• And children’s musician Tom Chapin, a graduate of the city’s schools, has just released a video for his newest song, “Not on the Test.” Sample lyric: “Each box that you mark on each test that you take/Remember your teachers, their jobs are at stake/Your score is their score, but don’t get all stressed/They’d never teach anything not on the test.” Ha ha!