*New Video* February First Rally

February is a big day, much bigger than February First. The Panel for Educational Puppets will vote on this day, whether to close 25 schools (including Legacy School for Integrated Studies). We are working very hard to get our school off the list but that of course is a slim to none chance. The PEP has closed well over 117 schools a big percent of them, new schools under Bloomberg’s administration.

The PEP consists of 13 members 8 of which are hand picked by the mayor himself. Just by that you can tell that corruption is present. We need support we will be having a press conference before the pep meeting at 4:30 in front of Brooklyn Tech.

Join us and bring a friend!!!


Legacy Conducting Their Own Investigation

Legacy students are hard at work looking for new data to present to the public. The DOE has hid behind the numbers for years but we are going to use it against them. We have asked the DOE to do an investigation in legacy’s past statistics and see if they are actually accurate. We do believe some things are false. We are also conducting a peer-index investigation. The DOE messed with the wrong school this time around! The Save Legacy Coalition is going to give them a run for their money.

Letter From Elected Officials

We Thank Them Some Much for Taking The Time to Write A letter for Us!!!

School Environment

School Environment

School Survey

As noted, there wasn’t that much of a numerical change between 2009-2010 school year to the 2010-2011, but upon deeper inspection, you can see upward trends.  [Insert chart from Legacy Stats created in Dec]

Attendance Rates

Attendance rates are influenced by a variety of factors that include home environment, preparation for school and feeling capable, extracurricular activities and school environment.  The reality is that in 2010:

  • 95% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch, which indicates income levels at home.[1] Additionally, 3% of our student population was homeless.  We are one school but we need to situate ourselves within a larger context of New York City.  As programs and social services are being cut throughout the city, more support is needed within the school.  The social and emotional issues that accompany students from under-resourced neighborhoods and schools need those supports provided at their school. However, we are experiencing cuts directly related to this need such as our loss of a social worker, the parent coordinator and a nurse.  These challenges affect attendance rates.
  • A peer index is the average 8th grade math and English test scores combined. The highest peer index a student can have is 4.0.  Our current peer index is 1.56 or 2.6? (check stat).  This means that we continue to receive many students who were not fully prepared in elementary and middle school.  Research has found that students will not come to school if they feel inadequate and this challenge will affect attendance rates.
  • Equally, budget cuts have reduced access to art, music, dance, theater, foreign language, computer skills/technology, school sports teams or clubs, tutoring and enrichment activities. Although the principal is in charge of the budget and how it is used, what must be understood that there is money that is not flexible and has to be used for certain items.  In our most current school survey, 42% of students were not offered art before-school, after-school or during free periods.  The same can be said for 66% of students not being offered music; 52% not being offered dance; 74% not being offered theater; 60% not being offered foreign language; 74% not being offered computer skills/technology; 54% of students were not offered school sports teams or clubs; and 58% of students were not offered tutoring or enrichment activities.[2]  If students are not able to develop other aspects of intelligence, they would be less likely to come to school.  An education is more than reading and writing, but with budget reductions each year, schools have to do more with less and have to put resources in place to make sure that students pass their academic subjects.  Yes, all schools are experiencing budget cuts, but other schools have immense parent associations that invest much of their money to supplement these types of programs. At Legacy, we do not have that luxury.  Parents from Legacy use their income to provide for their families and after that, there is not much left over.  We do not blame the lack of these programs in our school on the administration and teachers at Legacy; we blame the Department of Education.

When you look at the whole picture of attendance, you see these other variables that will affect it.  We understand that students need to be present to learn, but at the same time, the Department of Education needs to understand that there are many variables to consider that cannot be blamed on Legacy staff, students and parents.

Regardless of these challenges, the school environment is changing and Ms. Mosely has been an essential aspect of that change.  Within her short amount of time [more is needed in this section]:

  • ENACT, our community-based organization that specializes in dropout prevention, has expanded their work to include the 10th grade in addition to the 9th grade. Not only has this helped students have accessible strategies to use when confronted with social and emotional challenges but will connect them to the world of theatre and drama in an engaging way.
  • College Summit and Strive for College have partnered with Legacy in assisting Juniors and Seniors in the college application process.  Four sections of a College Preparatory class have been created.  This creates a college going culture that sets high expectations and is fully aware of their post-secondary choices.
  • We are partnering with Future Project that provides one-on-one mentorship as well helps students create social entrepreneurial projects that are focused on increasing their community’s capacity.
  • The Save Legacy Committee is creating a culture of activism, unity and community organizing.  They are the leaders behind a growing student movement that analyzes the world around them and speak up for the rights of students within the DOE structure.  They have been featured in Pix11, Gotham Schools, NY1, DNAinfo, The Today Show, Huffington Post Teen Twitter and other media.

However, parents, students, teachers and administration at Legacy understand that much more change is needed, but we all feel that we are heading in the appropriate direction with dependable leadership.  In the latest Quality Review, Ms. Mosely obtained a well-developed in:

  • Establish a coherent vision of future development that is reflected in a short list of focused, data-based goals that are understood and supported by the entire school community.

Communication and joint vision is important in transforming a school.  Ms. Mosely also obtained a proficient rating in:

  • Communicate high expectations to students and families, engage them in decision-making and promote active involvement in the school community.

In comparison, our past administration received underdeveloping with proficient features for both of those measures.

If the Department of Education decides to phase-out and close Legacy, they will be interfering with the stability and the process that we are making. This will affect our future school environment and attendance rates.  We have potential and are creating a Legacy that we can all be proud of. Phasing out a school that has potential and is making change does not make sense.

Proposal for Closure

Proposal for Closure

The proposal for closure is based on data on significant time increments: 10 years, 5 years and 3 years.  We only have data from the past three years so we feel that anything before needs to be disregarded and not utilized as part the proposal for closure as the public does not have access to that data. What we do have data that begins in 2008 and so we can comment on that.


The first thing that should be noted are the differences between past administration and current administration.  Ms. Mosely, our current principal, has only been here since 2010 and so a closure should be based on her data.  While we recognize that it is important to compare the year or two before Ms. Mosely, what we find appalling is the evaluation of Ms. Mosely and her ability to create change.  She has only had one year of data and so at this moment, the DOE is unable to fully evaluate her capacity to change the school in the future.

[How did the DOE evaluate Ms. Mosely’s capacity to create change in the school? Does the DOE regularly just give one year to principals to create change? What is the data regarding this?]


There are two aspects to discuss here:

  • A comparison of principal to principal
  • A comparison of one year to the next year by the same principal


Since, neither us or the DOE have the data to compare yearly gains of Ms. Mosely to evaluate her capacity to increase graduation rates and better learning outcomes, we can discuss the comparison of principal to principal.


According to the Progress Reports:


  2008-2009 Gregory Rodrigues 2009-2010

Gregory Rodrigues


Joan Mosely

Areas of evaluation
School Environment 7.6 of 15


8.0 of 15


6.0 of 15


School survey, attendance rate
Student Performance 9.8 of 25


7.5 of 25


10.1 of 25


Graduation rate, weighed diploma rate
Student Progress 25.7 of 60


35.5 of 60


19.3 of 60


Credit accumulation, regents passing rates
Overall Score D C F  



By looking at the numbers, we can see that there was a decrease in school environment and student progress from 2009-2010 school year to 2010-2011 school year.  There was a significant numerical increase in student performance from 7.5 to 10.1 out of 25 because of the 6 year graduation rate and weighed diploma rate.  The decrease in student progress was mostly because of credit accumulation.  In fact, Ms. Mosely received 6.16 points for regents pass rates compared to 5.78 the year before.  Under deeper inspection, when we analyze the specific areas of evaluation such as school environment, we see that there were not many differences numerically in school survey data, but the points lost were because of attendance rate.  In the next sections, we will discuss the differences between principals and other factors that affect each of these measures by looking at the school environment, student performance and progress.

Legacy’s Creation


The creation of Legacy School for Integrated Studies came from the Coalition of Campus Schools Project (CCSP), launched in New York City as part of a broader initiative to create small, new model schools during the early 1990s.[1] The project was part of the Board of Education’s broader school restructuring initiative, begun by Chancellor Joe Fernandez in 1989 and continued through the terms of four subsequent chancellors.[2] This project replaced two large, comprehensive neighborhood high schools with eleven small schools and redesigned the campuses to include a set of small elementary and high schools.[3]  Julia Richman was one of the large, comprehensive high schools that was replaced by six smaller high schools: Coalition School for Social Change, Landmark High School, Manhattan International High School, Manhattan Village Academy, Vanguard High School and Legacy School for the Integrated Studies.  Since, 5 of the 6 schools have remained opened.

When this project began, it was plagued by problems such as lack of funding, space and structural supports for student recruitment.  Late admissions, guidance counselors’ reluctance to recommend schools that did not have a site, and the Board of Education’s complex assignment procedures produced a student body comprised mostly of students who had not applied elsewhere or had been rejected by their chosen schools in the normal admission process.[4] Thus the CCSP student population included much greater proportions of low-income, low-achieving, and limited English-proficient students than the citywide average or the old Julia Richman High School (see Table 1).[5]


Since its inception, Legacy School for Integrated Studies has been a place where they have warehoused students who needed the most support. The small schools within this coalition did achieve greater attendance rates, fewer disruptions to the learning time and larger graduation rates.  However, Legacy had left the CCSP because of philosophical differences between the director and other members of the project.  Therefore, the findings about the outcomes from the report do not fully pertain to Legacy.


[Where is the data for Legacy during this time? Do parents and students have access to it?] [Insert student/parent perspective of why we bring up the past—history of disinvestment and policies that are mandated rather than created with parents and students that do not work]


However, in the Educational Impact Statement, statistics from the last ten years are cited as a reason for closure.

[From Educational Impact Statement] Graduation rates at Legacy have been consistently low for the last ten years. Last year, Legacy’s four-year graduation rate (including August graduates) was just 43%—well below the citywide average of 65.1% and in the bottom 4% of high schools Citywide. (Citywide average is based on the 2010 New York State reported graduation results for NYCDOE students.)

[Where are the graduation rates from the past ten years? How can the community make an informed decision without the appropriate data?]

[1] Reinventing high schools: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/reinventing_hs.pdf

[2] Reinventing high schools: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/reinventing_hs.pdf

[3] Reinventing high schools: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/reinventing_hs.pdf

[4] Reinventing high schools: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/reinventing_hs.pdf

[5] Reinventing high schools: Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/reinventing_hs.pdf

Why We Walked Out


We are walking out because our school, Legacy School for the Integrated Studies, has been proposed for a phase-out and closure.  We have been protesting that this is not fair especially since our principal is new and she is already creating extreme change.  She inherited a school from a principal that was not effective.  Some of us felt as if the progress reports during the past admiration did not reflect what was happening in school.  Students and teachers were surprised about individuals who graduated without the proper credits. Now that we are making significant, accurate gains with new leadership, our sense of stability is being taken away from us. This is why we are walking out.  We are not walking out on learning.  We are not walking out on our principal.  We are walking out because the DOE does not create policies that help us achieve.  If they did, we would have a higher percentage than 13% of Latino and African-American students who are college-ready in NEW YORK CITY!”  Wake up NEW YORK CITY! How are we a major hub of business and innovation in the world and not have the best education system for everyone, not just Stuyvesant, not just Baruch! Stand up, walk out and be seen and heard.