Stop the Steamrolling! CCHS dissenters sound the alarm over AI-Focused Next Gen Tech High School resolution
On March 11, CCHS voted 7-3 to pass a resolution formally supporting the proposed AI-focused Next Generation Technology High School. The resolution is effectively a CCHS endorsement of a School Utilization Proposal (SUP) that would establish a new, screened high school (Next Generation Technology High School, or NGTHS) focused on preparing students for careers in artificial intelligence. It also doubles down on a full-council endorsement by stipulating—absurdly—“that the Citywide Council on High Schools authorizes the CCHS Co-Presidents, or their designee(s), and any Council Member who wishes to do so, to communicate this resolution and advocate in support of NGTHS before the Panel for Educational Policy, provided that such advocacy reflects the position adopted by CCHS in this resolution.”
This proposal is contingent upon the closure of an existing school and the co-location of Next Gen Tech in a building shared with other school communities.
We are not opposed to technology-focused education, innovative programming, or preparing students for the future. What we oppose is the rushed, unconsidered implementation of AI throughout NYCPS, the process by which this school has come into being, the manner in which this resolution was presented and handled, the troubling exclusion of the very communities that will be most directly impacted by this decision, and the attempt to present CCHS as a monolith on this issue and intimidate dissenting members who might speak out publicly in opposition.
If New York City is truly interested in preparing our students for the future, it would be wise to invest in up-to-date tech education in our existing schools that serve all children, not just a select few. The current AP Computer Science curriculum is from 2014. That is a lifetime ago in this fast-moving field. Additionally, if we are to prepare our students to use AI and not be used by AI, as a complement to human intelligence and innovation, they must have excellent, precise language, reading, critical thinking and media literacy skills, taught by human teachers.
Investments must be made in those areas, as well as in developing strong fundamental skills in mathematics. Preparing for the future demands these changes of all schools, all educators, and all students—not one new high school.
More proximally, the circumstances surrounding this resolution are deeply troubling. The resolution was not included on the agenda distributed to the public along with the copies of other resolutions up for discussion at the same meeting. No copy was available on the CCHS meeting notice nor on the website before the meeting. While the co-presidents indicated that a link was placed in the Zoom chat at 6:02 PM (meeting start time is 6pm), that would only have reached those already logged in at that moment (chat history is not visible to meeting attendees as they join). The sign-up period for public comment closed at 6:45 PM, before some attendees knew the resolution existed. At least one member of the public who attended in person only learned of the resolution at 7:30 PM, when a sponsoring councilperson handed out physical copies in the room. This resolution never appeared on the list of resolutions available for public comment.
This was not meaningful public participation. It disenfranchised parents and students. A resolution that endorses the closure of a school and attempts to curtail councilmember speech demands more than a last-minute link in a chat window. Equally concerning is the role of CCHS members in the Next Gen Technology High School process. At least two members of CCHS (both of whom are among this resolution’s sponsors) have described themselves as being on the “launch committee” for the school. (As far as we are aware, there has been no public disclosure of the existence of said committee or its membership.) When councilmembers are both advocates for a proposal and members of the governing body being asked to endorse it, and don’t at the very least qualify their involvement, the integrity of the deliberative process is compromised.
Further, the express “authorization” of CCHS members to make public statements only if the statement “reflects the position adopted by CCHS in this resolution” is an attempt to control CCHS's institutional voice going forward. Read plainly, this means that CCHS members are authorized to appear before the PEP in their council capacity only if they are speaking in support of the current SUP. The effect is to deputize councilmembers to carry the weight of CCHS’s institutional credibility while implicitly framing any dissenting member who speaks before the PEP as acting outside the scope of the council’s authority. Even if the clause, as written, cannot technically prevent a member from showing up at a meeting and exercising their First Amendment right to speak out in opposition to the proposal, it creates a two-tiered system: councilmembers who speak for the council and councilmembers who speak despite it. When you consider how the underlying vote was obtained—without adequate notice, without public input, without full disclosure of the proposal's consequences—this clause locks in advantage gained through a flawed process and extends it to the next forum where this decision will be debated.
With respect to the proposal itself, the SUP which CCHS now supports does not exist in a vacuum. The resolution fails to acknowledge that it is contingent upon the closure of the Urban Assembly School of Business for Young Women. It will co-locate Next Gen Tech in a building with other schools, including Richard H. Green and Lower Manhattan Community School. The SUP’s own Educational Impact Statement makes clear that once Next Gen Tech reaches full capacity, the building will be at maximum utilization, curtailing any plans for the co-located middle school to expand to a 6-12 school. These schools already go to heroic lengths to creatively and equitably share facilities such as the gymnasium and cafeteria. It is also unclear whether the Next Gen Tech will absorb or take over the Richard H. Green transfer school, a D79 school. These are consequences that directly affect existing school communities, and those communities were entirely shut out of the process that led to this resolution.
School closure is the most significant disruption a school community can face. The families at UA Business for Young Women, Richard H. Green and Lower Manhattan Community School deserved a seat at the table and the opportunity to weigh in before CCHS took a vote to lend its formal support. Instead, the resolution was fast-tracked in a way that foreclosed public participation. The fact that the proposal will not even be formally put to public comment until the April 29 PEP meeting, following the next CCHS meeting, makes the urgency with which this resolution was pushed through even more troubling. What really was the rush?
Community Education Councils, such as CCHS, are meant to meaningfully engage the community and ensure that the public has a genuine voice in shaping and running NYCPS. When a council rushes a resolution without adequate notice, without full disclosure of its implications, and at the behest of sponsors who have a direct stake in the outcome, it undermines the legitimacy of the body itself.
Investments must be made in those areas, as well as in developing strong fundamental skills in mathematics. Preparing for the future demands these changes of all schools, all educators, and all students—not one new high school.
More proximally, the circumstances surrounding this resolution are deeply troubling. The resolution was not included on the agenda distributed to the public along with the copies of other resolutions up for discussion at the same meeting. No copy was available on the CCHS meeting notice nor on the website before the meeting. While the co-presidents indicated that a link was placed in the Zoom chat at 6:02 PM (meeting start time is 6pm), that would only have reached those already logged in at that moment (chat history is not visible to meeting attendees as they join). The sign-up period for public comment closed at 6:45 PM, before some attendees knew the resolution existed. At least one member of the public who attended in person only learned of the resolution at 7:30 PM, when a sponsoring councilperson handed out physical copies in the room. This resolution never appeared on the list of resolutions available for public comment.
This was not meaningful public participation. It disenfranchised parents and students. A resolution that endorses the closure of a school and attempts to curtail councilmember speech demands more than a last-minute link in a chat window. Equally concerning is the role of CCHS members in the Next Gen Technology High School process. At least two members of CCHS (both of whom are among this resolution’s sponsors) have described themselves as being on the “launch committee” for the school. (As far as we are aware, there has been no public disclosure of the existence of said committee or its membership.) When councilmembers are both advocates for a proposal and members of the governing body being asked to endorse it, and don’t at the very least qualify their involvement, the integrity of the deliberative process is compromised.
Further, the express “authorization” of CCHS members to make public statements only if the statement “reflects the position adopted by CCHS in this resolution” is an attempt to control CCHS's institutional voice going forward. Read plainly, this means that CCHS members are authorized to appear before the PEP in their council capacity only if they are speaking in support of the current SUP. The effect is to deputize councilmembers to carry the weight of CCHS’s institutional credibility while implicitly framing any dissenting member who speaks before the PEP as acting outside the scope of the council’s authority. Even if the clause, as written, cannot technically prevent a member from showing up at a meeting and exercising their First Amendment right to speak out in opposition to the proposal, it creates a two-tiered system: councilmembers who speak for the council and councilmembers who speak despite it. When you consider how the underlying vote was obtained—without adequate notice, without public input, without full disclosure of the proposal's consequences—this clause locks in advantage gained through a flawed process and extends it to the next forum where this decision will be debated.
With respect to the proposal itself, the SUP which CCHS now supports does not exist in a vacuum. The resolution fails to acknowledge that it is contingent upon the closure of the Urban Assembly School of Business for Young Women. It will co-locate Next Gen Tech in a building with other schools, including Richard H. Green and Lower Manhattan Community School. The SUP’s own Educational Impact Statement makes clear that once Next Gen Tech reaches full capacity, the building will be at maximum utilization, curtailing any plans for the co-located middle school to expand to a 6-12 school. These schools already go to heroic lengths to creatively and equitably share facilities such as the gymnasium and cafeteria. It is also unclear whether the Next Gen Tech will absorb or take over the Richard H. Green transfer school, a D79 school. These are consequences that directly affect existing school communities, and those communities were entirely shut out of the process that led to this resolution.
School closure is the most significant disruption a school community can face. The families at UA Business for Young Women, Richard H. Green and Lower Manhattan Community School deserved a seat at the table and the opportunity to weigh in before CCHS took a vote to lend its formal support. Instead, the resolution was fast-tracked in a way that foreclosed public participation. The fact that the proposal will not even be formally put to public comment until the April 29 PEP meeting, following the next CCHS meeting, makes the urgency with which this resolution was pushed through even more troubling. What really was the rush?
This situation illustrates a troubling trend at CCHS. The initial public presentation of Next Gen Tech (formerly “Artificial Intelligence-Themed High School”) at our February meeting was unannounced to the public body and to several councilmembers, although it was clear some councilmembers were aware before the meeting started. The top-down approach and close hold of information exhibited by this council’s leadership is disenfranchising. It manifests as not only undue barriers to full participation for councilmembers, but also low public participation. Our council represents more than 289,000 students, and yet only about 18 families attend our meetings on a good day (far fewer, usually). Further, our meetings feature constantly shifting and inconsistently communicated rules around public engagement. In this case, the expedited process of this resolution implies a fear that a proper, inclusive public hearing would surface discussions that might undermine support for the school.
Community Education Councils, such as CCHS, are meant to meaningfully engage the community and ensure that the public has a genuine voice in shaping and running NYCPS. When a council rushes a resolution without adequate notice, without full disclosure of its implications, and at the behest of sponsors who have a direct stake in the outcome, it undermines the legitimacy of the body itself.
Importantly, when the screening algorithms and the school selection processes generally perpetuate racial bias, the decision to close a school that is 92% Black and Latinx in lieu of another, new, and larger screened program exacerbates the already present racial inequality.
Finally, the plans for Next Gen Tech present serious student data privacy and protection issues. According to Gary Beidelman, the superintendent championing the project, companies like Google and OpenAI have been a part of planning conversations. The school will use Google’s new, AI-powered Skills Platform despite the fact that the Skills Platform's privacy policy states that users must be over 18 and that “If [users] are under 18 years old, please not use or submit any personal data through the service.” The privacy of NYCPS student data is at risk, and NYCPS is sorely underestimating the implications of allowing large corporations that perpetuate systems of inequality and are presently implicated in ICE enforcement to have access to the data of NYCPS students. We have this concern systemwide, but feel that it is especially pronounced with respect to the proposed Next Gen Tech high school, and especially before NYCPS has created guidelines for AI use more broadly.
We urge PEP, the Chancellor, and our elected officials to slow this process down and do it right. Ensure genuine public engagement with adequate notice. Invite the impacted school communities into the conversation before decisions are made on their behalf. Require full transparency about the proposal's implications in any resolution that comes before a parent council or PEP. And consider whether the goals of Next Gen Tech can be achieved through models that strengthen existing schools and protect student data.
We urge students, families, organizations, and community members to submit testimony during both the Tuesday, April 14th joint public teleconference hearing (6 PM, submit written testimony or phone testimony (212-374-3466) ) and the April 29th PEP meeting in-person (M.S. 131,100 Hester Street, New York, NY 10002). Sign up for public comment between 5:30 and 6:15 on the day of the meeting.
In Dissent,
Adriana Aviles (Queens Representative)
Kelly Bare (Manhattan Representative)
Kim Berney-Brooke (CCSE Appointee)
Nancy Cruz (Brooklyn Representative)
Camara Stokes Hudson (Public Advocate Appointee)
Finally, the plans for Next Gen Tech present serious student data privacy and protection issues. According to Gary Beidelman, the superintendent championing the project, companies like Google and OpenAI have been a part of planning conversations. The school will use Google’s new, AI-powered Skills Platform despite the fact that the Skills Platform's privacy policy states that users must be over 18 and that “If [users] are under 18 years old, please not use or submit any personal data through the service.” The privacy of NYCPS student data is at risk, and NYCPS is sorely underestimating the implications of allowing large corporations that perpetuate systems of inequality and are presently implicated in ICE enforcement to have access to the data of NYCPS students. We have this concern systemwide, but feel that it is especially pronounced with respect to the proposed Next Gen Tech high school, and especially before NYCPS has created guidelines for AI use more broadly.
We urge PEP, the Chancellor, and our elected officials to slow this process down and do it right. Ensure genuine public engagement with adequate notice. Invite the impacted school communities into the conversation before decisions are made on their behalf. Require full transparency about the proposal's implications in any resolution that comes before a parent council or PEP. And consider whether the goals of Next Gen Tech can be achieved through models that strengthen existing schools and protect student data.
We urge students, families, organizations, and community members to submit testimony during both the Tuesday, April 14th joint public teleconference hearing (6 PM, submit written testimony or phone testimony (212-374-3466) ) and the April 29th PEP meeting in-person (M.S. 131,100 Hester Street, New York, NY 10002). Sign up for public comment between 5:30 and 6:15 on the day of the meeting.
In Dissent,
Adriana Aviles (Queens Representative)
Kelly Bare (Manhattan Representative)
Kim Berney-Brooke (CCSE Appointee)
Nancy Cruz (Brooklyn Representative)
Camara Stokes Hudson (Public Advocate Appointee)