Skip to primary navigation Skip to main content

What's your school's special ed rate?

Earlier this week, a recent UB grad named Maddie Morcelle presented the School Board with a study she'd done on special ed rates in Buffalo's charter schools.

It took her a few months before the Buffalo Public Schools would give her the school-by-school data she'd requested. (For reasons I don't understand, the state does not publish school-by-school special ed rates on the annual report cards. The data is public, but it's not readily available on a website anywhere.)

The data she got was interesting. Not only did she get the special ed rate for every charter school, but she also get the percentage of students at each school whose disability was speech- or language-related. Those disabilities are generally less severe than others in the universe of disabilities, and are among the less expensive to address.

Her study confirmed two things that are generally believed to be true: the special ed rate varies considerably from school to school (in the year she looked at, the range was 4.3 percent at Global Concepts Charter to 20.2 percent at Pinnacle Charter), and charter schools generally enroll fewer students with disabilities than district schools (in the year she looked at, the average was 13.3 percent at local charters, compared to 19.4 percent in the district).

That piqued my curiosity, and so I asked the district for comparable data for district schools.

What I ended up with was the most-recent data available for district schools (2011-12) and the most-recent data available for charter schools (2010-11).

The range in the special ed rates is quite dramatic, for district schools as well as charter schools.

Within the district, Hutch Tech has the lowest special ed rate, at 4.9 percent. City Honors is at 8.2 percent. At the other end is South Park, at 25.6 percent; Early Childhood Center 82 at 26 percent; and Drew Early Childhood Center at 30.1 percent.

(School 84, on the ECMC campus, and the Occupational Training Center both have a special ed rate above 90 percent. Those two schools are specifically designed for students with disabilities.)

The lowest special ed rates among the charters were at Health Sciences (5.5 percent) and Buffalo Academy of Science (8.1 percent). King Center, Pinnacle and Enterprise charter schools were all around 17.5 percent.

Here's the school-by-school breakdown. Schools with the lowest percentage of special ed students are listed first.

School % students with disabilities % speech/ language % students with disabilities, other than speech/language
Hutch Tech 4.9% 0.1% 4.8%
Health Sciences Charter 5.5% 0.0% 5.5%
Buffalo Acad of Science Charter 8.1% 0.6% 7.5%
City Honors 8.2% 0.2% 7.9%
International Sch 45 9.9% 3.6% 6.4%
Buffalo United Charter 11.4% 4.7% 6.7%
da Vinci High School 11.7% 0.0% 11.7%
Applied Technology Charter 11.9% 5.3% 6.7%
Global Concepts Charter 12.3% 4.9% 7.5%
Elmwood Village Charter 12.4% 5.7% 6.7%
Olmsted 64 12.4% 6.1% 6.3%
Westminster Charter 13.0% 5.2% 7.8%
Community Charter 14.0% 7.9% 6.1%
Drew Science 59 14.1% 4.5% 9.6%
Native Am Magnet 14.1% 4.4% 9.7%
Lydia T. Wright 14.2% 3.4% 10.8%
Buffalo Elem Sch of Tech 14.2% 2.9% 11.3%
Performing Arts 14.3% 0.6% 13.7%
Olmsted 56 14.4% 2.1% 12.2%
Waterfront 14.7% 7.1% 7.6%
South Buffalo Charter 14.7% 7.5% 7.2%
Middle Early College 14.9% 0.0% 14.9%
Pantoja 15.1% 3.0% 12.1%
North Park 15.2% 3.0% 12.2%
Math Science Tech Prep 15.2% 1.6% 13.6%
Tapestry Charter 15.4% 2.8% 12.6%
D'Youville Porter 15.5% 5.7% 9.8%
Sedita 15.5% 3.8% 11.7%
WNY Maritime Charter 15.6% 0.0% 15.6%
Discovery School 15.7% 4.7% 11.1%
International Prep 15.7% 1.9% 13.8%
Oracle Charter 15.8% 0.0% 15.8%
Aloma Johnson Fruit Belt Charter 16.1% 8.6% 7.5%
Bilingual Ctr 33 16.2% 5.9% 10.3%
McKinley High 16.3% 0.0% 16.3%
Lafayette High 16.4% 0.0% 16.4%
Highgate Heights 16.7% 4.6% 12.1%
King Center Charter 17.4% 9.5% 7.8%
Pinnacle Charter 17.6% 9.4% 8.2%
Enterprise Charter 17.7% 11.3% 6.4%
School 81 18.0% 5.2% 12.8%
West Hertel 19.1% 5.4% 13.7%
Community School 53 19.1% 3.1% 16.1%
East High 19.1% 0.0% 19.1%
Bennett High 19.5% 0.3% 19.2%
Bennett Park Montessori 19.6% 4.4% 15.2%
Roosevelt 19.8% 11.1% 8.7%
Makowski 20.2% 6.4% 13.8%
Houghton 20.3% 5.9% 14.4%
Riverside 20.3% 0.1% 20.2%
Academy Sch 20.8% 0.0% 20.8%
Early Childhood Ctr 17 20.9% 7.8% 13.1%
B.U.I.L.D. Academy 21.0% 6.8% 14.2%
Hamlin Park 21.2% 2.5% 18.7%
Herman Badillo 21.3% 6.7% 14.7%
Blackman 21.3% 6.3% 15.0%
Early Childhood Ctr 61 21.6% 7.4% 14.2%
Hillery Park 22.4% 7.8% 14.6%
Lovejoy Discovery 22.7% 7.3% 15.4%
Futures Academy 22.8% 6.6% 16.2%
Emerson 23.0% 0.0% 23.0%
MLK 24.1% 4.7% 19.4%
Burgard High 24.3% 0.2% 24.2%
Lorraine 24.4% 7.4% 17.0%
Harvey Austin 24.8% 9.5% 15.3%
Southside 25.4% 6.8% 18.6%
Grabiarz 25.4% 3.9% 21.5%
Tubman 25.6% 4.7% 20.9%
South Park High 25.6% 0.3% 25.3%
Early Childhood Ctr 82 26.0% 5.0% 20.9%
Drew Early Childhood 30.1% 7.5% 22.6%
Erie County Health Ctr Sch 84 92.5% 0.0% 92.5%
Occupational Training Ctr 96.3% 0.0% 96.3%

 

- Mary Pasciak

 

facebook.com/mary.pasciak     twitter.com/MaryPasciak    [email protected]

Live blog of School Board meeting at 4:30 p.m.

Join me at 4:30 p.m., when the board will hold a public hearing about the King Center Charter School's application for a five-year charter renewal.

That will be followed by the regular meeting of the School Board at 5:30 p.m.

Here is the packet of contracts, personnel changes and other items for tonight's meeting.

- Mary Pasciak

facebook.com/mary.pasciak     twitter.com/MaryPasciak    [email protected]

Less than a week left to save Lafayette

We've been hearing for months now that if State Ed doesn't have an approvable plan for Lafayette High School by June 30, the commissioner will revoke the school's registration and close the school.

Is that likely to happen?

Lafayette High SchoolThe state approved the Lafayette improvement plan in early May, remember, but can't release funding for it until or unless the district and the teachers union reach agreement on a teacher eval plan for 2012-13.

It's now June 26, and teacher reps and district administrators are in their second day of meetings at the Hearthstone Manor to hash out that eval agreement -- in typical Buffalo style, waiting until the 11th hour.

"I think teachers and district staff are really committed to having this done by July 1," Amber Dixon told me.

If the two sides are able to reach an agreement by the deadline, there's still another issue: the status of Johns Hopkins University, which announced two months ago it was pulling out as the educational partnership organization for September because there was no eval plan in place -- and because of that, the federal funding was in question.

Dixon says as soon as the union and the district agree to a 2012-13 evaluation plan, district officials will approach Johns Hopkins officials and ask them for a modified agreement for Lafayette.

"We would have to go back to Johns Hopkins and amend their contract somehow -- start with a smaller cohort of students, perhaps, or use the first semester for planning and training and not take full charge until the second semester," she said.

"Johns Hopkins never stepped away from their willingness to work with Buffalo -- they just said the timeline for September was not going to work."

- Mary Pasciak

facebook.com/mary.pasciak     twitter.com/MaryPasciak    [email protected]

Who will get to see those teacher evals?

The state Legislature recently approved a measure that will limit the public disclosure of teacher evaluations.

Had lawmakers not put something in place, evaluations would have been subject to full public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law. What they approved restricts blanket access -- so as to avoid having newspapers publish full listings of teachers and their ratings, similar to what happened in New York City earlier this year -- but provides aggregate info to the public while also providing parents with access to information about their child's teacher.

Here is a full copy of the bill, for those of you interested in the nitty gritty. And for everyone else, here are some of the details:

The state Education Department must post aggregate teacher and principal evaluation data on its website. The idea is that you can see how teachers -- as a group -- did on their evaluations at a particular school, for example, but you cannot tell how a particular teacher did.

State Ed will be required to post the "final quality ratings" -- in other words, highly effective, effective, developing or ineffective -- and "composite effectiveness scores" -- meaning the scores out of a maximum possible score of 100 -- for groups of teachers and groups of principals.

Principal ratings and scores will be posted on a district-wide basis. Teacher ratings and scores will be posted by school, as well as "by class, by subject and grade."

In other words, the State Ed website will indicate the number or percentage of teachers in each school who were rated highly effective; the number/percentage rated effective; the number/percentage rated developing; and the number/percentage rated ineffective.

Similarly, the state will post online the number/percentage of principals in each district who received each of the four ratings.

The law clearly states that State Ed and school districts must ensure that any release of evaluation data to the public "does not include personally identifying information for any teacher or principal, provided, however, that nothing shall impair the right of parents and legal guardians to review and receive" information about their child's specific principal and teachers.

But when individual parents or guardians request information about a specific teacher or principal, they can get it.

The information they can get is limited, though, to the overall rating and composite score of "each of the teachers and for the principal of the school building for which the student is assigned for the current school year."

In other words, the parent of a fourth-grader at Futures Academy can get information about the child's fourth-grade teacher, the gym teacher, the art teacher, and so on -- but cannot get information about any other fourth-grade teacher in the school, or the fifth-grade teachers in the school -- or about any teachers or principals at any other schools.

Each school board is required to give parents and guardians "conspicuous notice" of their rights to access evaluation information.

Parents and guardians can "review and receive such data in any manner, including by phone or in person."

The law takes effect July 1, 2012.

- Mary Pasciak

facebook.com/mary.pasciak     twitter.com/MaryPasciak    [email protected]

That five-word text message from City Hall

The School Board met behind closed doors for an hour and a half last week to make its final decision on which candidate to hire as the city's next superintendent.

Moments before the board emerged back into public session to unveil its decision to hire Pamela Brown, board President Lou Petrucci let Amber Dixon know what the board had decided.

By text.

"It's going to be Brown," he texted her.

As word of the notification-by-text has trickled out, many Dixon supporters say her 21 years in the district and nine months at the helm of it should have warranted the courtesy of a personal visit -- or at least a phone call -- to deliver the news.

"He ought to be ashamed of himself," one City Hall insider said about Petrucci.

- Mary Pasciak

facebook.com/mary.pasciak     twitter.com/MaryPasciak    [email protected]

Why the state rejected plans for one Buffalo school

When the state approved six out of Buffalo's seven school improvement plans recently, it also rejected one: the plan to hire Canisius College, in partnership with Fordham University, to run Waterfront Elementary.

At the time, though, state Education Department officials did not offer any details whatsoever on their rejection of the Waterfront plan.

The plan, in a nutshell, called for data-driven instruction to establish high academic expectations for all students.

The plan included making families and students in grades five to eight aware of high school and college options; setting educational goals; and accessing financial aid and scholarships to realize them. (Here's the full plan, if you're interested in the details.)

Why did the state reject it?

State Ed spokesman Tom Dunn recently offered this explanation when I asked:

The Educational Partner Organization (EPO), Canisius College, did not propose a Restart plan that provided SED with confidence that the EPO had the capacity to ensure dramatic student gains at the school. Specifically, the plan lacked detail regarding important implementation activities and the EPOs strategy for accomplishing them.  

It was unclear what the type and intensity of the intervention by Canisius would involve; and at the same time, the type and intensity of Fordham's involvement was judged to be inadequate to support the plan proposed.

When the EPO (educational partnership organization) option was rolled out for turning around low-performing schools, there was much talk about getting local colleges and universities involved in the efforts.

So far, that hasn't worked out too well.

Canisius wasn't the first local college to submit a proposal to run one of the low-performing schools -- and be rejected.

Last year, Buffalo State College submitted a plan to turn around Lafayette High School. After much deliberation, the School Board endorsed the plan and sent it into State Ed -- which rejected the plan, saying, among other things, that the district didn't have enough of an infrastructure in place to support EPOs.

And a few months later, when the district got another chance on the Lafayette plan, Buffalo State submitted a proposal again, but the School Board selected a plan from Johns Hopkins University instead.

- Mary Pasciak

facebook.com/mary.pasciak     twitter.com/MaryPasciak    [email protected]

Buffalo's growing racial gap: How big is it at your high school?

The state this week released a mountain of data that shows, among other things, that the racial gap for graduation rates in Buffalo has gotten slightly worse over the past few years.

The four-year graduation rate for black students in the Class of 2011 was 52 percent; for whites, 64 percent; Hispanics, 44 percent; and Asians, 51 percent.

McKinley gradThe gap between black and white students in the district increased from 10 to 12 points in the past four years; the gap between Hispanic and white students remained at 20 points.

When you look at individual schools in the city, an interesting picture emerges.

The bottom line, it seems, is that generally, whatever racial group constitutes the majority in a school ends up with the highest graduation rate in that building.

For instance, white students constituted the majority of the senior class at City Honors, South Park and da Vinci. They also had the highest graduation rate at each of those schools.

Black students had a higher graduation rate than white or Hispanic students at nine out of 16 high schools in the city: Bennett, Burgard, East, Emerson, Lafayette, McKinley, Occupational Training Center, Oracle Charter and Tapestry Charter.

Of those, Lafayette was the only school where blacks did not constitute the majority of the graduating class. (There were 71 Hispanic students in Lafayette's Class of 2011, and 70 black students.)

And at four high schools, Hispanic students had a higher graduation rate than white or black students at Hutch Tech, International Prep, Performing Arts and Riverside. At each of those schools, there were more black students in the graduating class than any other racial group.

Here are the details. (In cases where there were fewer than 10 students in a racial group at a school, the state suppressed the results, for privacy reasons. In those cases, there is an "n/a" listed.)


Enrollment Graduation rate

Black  Hispanic White Black  Hispanic White
Bennett 210 9 15 36% n/a 27%
Bflo Acad Sci Charter 53 3 5 74% n/a n/a
Burgard 110 12 16 35% 8% 19%
City Honors 34 7 74 88% n/a 97%
da Vinci 38 18 50 84% n/a 98%
East 163 4 12 41% n/a 25%
Emerson 69 12 27 68% 67% 59%
Hutch Tech 140 29 101 83% 86% 80%
Int'l Prep 46 19 12 46% 63% 42%
Lafayette 70 71 17 39% 21% 24%
McKinley 174 20 66 68% 55% 64%
MST Prep 64 3 6 69% n/a n/a
Occupational Trng Ctr 54 9 14 67% n/a 50%
Oracle Charter 49 12 8 63% 58% 63%
Performing Arts 98 13 35 70% 77% 66%
Riverside 103 47 52 28% 36% 33%
South Park 56 27 128 45% 44% 66%
Tapestry Charter 46 5 25 96% n/a 84%
WNY Maritime Charter 41 2 7 76% n/a n/a

 

(I focused on just the three racial groups because the number of Asian or American Indian students at most schools is so small that the state suppresses their graduation rates.)

- Mary Pasciak

facebook.com/mary.pasciak     twitter.com/MaryPasciak    [email protected]

International Prep students rally to get Grover back

While media attention yesterday was on the shooting at ECMC and the appointment of the new superintendent, dozens of students from International Prep were rallying at City Hall to urge the School Board to let them move back into the Grover Cleveland building.

IPrep studentsA quick background of the situation: International Prep moved out of Grover a year ago, to the old Performing Arts building on Clinton Street, while the district reconstructed the historic building on the West Side. (Reconstruction generally is a two-year process.)

District officials decided to move da Vinci off the D'Youville campus to save money on the lease -- and put those students into Grover. About a year ago, a plan was floated to co-locate da Vinci and Early Middle College, but the da Vinci community complained, and that plan was abandoned.

The current plan is to expand da Vinci, which is now a high school, to start at fifth grade, and house the school at Grover.

Board member Roz Taylor was the only person on the board to raise a host of questions when the plan was discussed recently. Among her questions: Why would the district be adding seats in grades 5-8 when it already can't fill all the seats it has? The answer, from chief of staff Jim Kane: The district believes an expanded da Vinci could attract current charter school students back to the district. And with each student who returns to the Buffalo Public Schools, comes thousands of dollars. The expansion, he said, could easily pay for itself if enough students return from the charters.

International Prep students last night let the School Board know that they want to move back into Grover. The West Side is becoming more and more of a hub for Buffalo's newest immigrants. Keeping the school in the neighborhood makes sense on many levels, they said.

"Grover has a history on the West Side," said Sadia Mohammad, a student. "It's a multicultural school with 43 languages. Eight out of 10 students who graduated last year are ESL. Parents of the kids who go there, most of them live on the West Side. They have people who speak the same language, share the same culture and traditions as them.

"They don't have to worry about their kids' safety becauase they know their kids go to a school with kids who have the same struggles. Going to Grover gives our families a sense of security and belonging."

Keeping the school in the neighborhood would also make it easier for parents who don't speak English to participate, students said, because they would not have to try to navigate a public transportation system to get across town.

"Being part of this new school will make it easier for parents on the West Side to come to events," said Kahlid Mohamed, a student from Somalia.

To top it all off, Kelli Monaco-Hannon, a teacher at da Vinci, implored the board to keep da Vinci at D'Youville and give Grover to International Prep.

"In December 2011, Sister Denise (Roche, president of D'Youville) wrote a letter to Amber Dixon asking that da Vinci stay in its present location, offering to renegotiate the lease at a reduced amount," Monaco-Hannon said. "As of today, she has not received a response. Why did she not receive the courtesy of a reply?"

Dixon recently asked the board to pass a resolution officially approving the expansion and relocation of da Vinci into Grover, but so far, the board hasn't acted on it.

- Mary Pasciak

facebook.com/mary.pasciak     twitter.com/MaryPasciak    [email protected]

The School Board asks for a raise -- and other tales from the Common Council

Yesterday, during a joint meeting of the Common Council and the School Board, at large board member John Licata tackled a touchy subject.

Licata with mic"Asking for money is one of those taboo subjects," he said. "Culturally, it's difficult to turn to somebody and ask for a raise."

And then he proceeded to do just that.

Back in 1974, when the School Board became an elective office, the Council set the salary at $5,000, Licata said.

And for the last 38 years, the salary has remained the same.

"I think it's time the salary of the board of education be revisited by this council," Licata said. "We are often told, 'You're doing it for the children, and that's a noble cause, and that should be enough compensation for you.' I say because it is such a noble call, we should be compensated for the time and effort we put into it."

More than one council member seemed to be on board.

"I do agree with Mr. Licata," said Fillmore Council member David Franczyk.

Both he and Council President Rich Fontana seemed to recall the Council approving a raise -- up to $10,000 -- back in the late '90s, but there were differing recollections regarding why that never took effect.

By way of background, none of the nearly 700 suburban school boards in the state are paid, but board members in Rochester and Syracuse are paid. In Rochester, board members' salaries are set at a percentage of council members' salaries.

Right now, Rochester board members make $23,000; the president of the board makes $30,000. That district is about the same size as Buffalo. In Syracuse, which is about two-thirds the size of Buffalo, board members make $7,500, plus they are eligible for district-provided health benefits.

Licata says he thinks Buffalo board members should make $20,000. (Coincidentally, that's about what $5,000 in 1974 is equivalent to, in 2012 dollars, once you factor in inflation.)

Here are some of the other highlights from the joint council/board meeting yesterday (for more details, check out the archive of the live blog here):

- The board and the council agreed to form a joint committee to find ways to address the high student absenteeism in the city.

- The two bodies agreed to have buyers from both entities meet to find ways to save money through joint purchasing.

- Officials from the council as well as the board recalled days when the city had an AIM team, which paired police officers with attendance teachers. The team rounded up kids on the streets during the school day and brought them to school.

"AIM officers had cars," Fontana said. "They were essentially officers going out and bringing kids in."

There was general agreement that that was an effective strategy, which died when the city cut police officers.

- Officials from both bodies agreed that there should be a more concentrated effort to market former schools to potential developers. Right now, a number of them are sitting vacant in neighborhoods.

"I think there's an appetite for reuse of these schools," Ellicott Council member Darius Pridgen said. "I think both sides have to work aggressively to market these facilities and get them offline. Do we have meetings where we open these buildings up to developers?"

- Pridgen also suggested launching a noncriminal court to deal with parents of chronically absent students.

School Board member Florence Johnson suggested holding back a portion of a family's social services support until parents get their children on track. She said the district had done it before.

"As I recall, we had very good attendance at that time," she said. "The civil liberties union got involved, and it was rescinded."

- Some board members noted that the city has a surplus right now, and the board would like to get some of it. Johnson suggested that the council start by providing additional money for attendance. She suggested the city consider adding police officers to help with attendance.

"If there's a proposal that comes forward, we would consider it," Fontana said. "Your idea of funding it creatively is a good one."

- Mary Pasciak

facebook.com/mary.pasciak     twitter.com/MaryPasciak    [email protected]

Teacher evals: It's not over yet

Everybody seems to be breathing a little easier now that the teachers union has approved the 2011-12 evaluation plan for teachers at six schools, which State Ed then, just a few hours later, officially signed off on.

But wait.

It's not over.

The district and the union have until July 1 to reach another agreement -- this time, on teacher evals for 2012-13, for teachers across the Buffalo Public Schools.

And the plan is to have teachers and administrators meet for four days the last week of June to hash it out. That's right, the last week of June.

Phil Rumore told me he doubts four days will be enough time to get it all figured out.

But he's not concerned. He says State Ed told the district that July 1 deadline isn't firm -- that the district "just needs to submit something" by then, but really, it doesn't have to be in final form until Jan. 17, 2013.

Well, let's unravel this a bit.

The district is dealing with two sets of deadlines for its 2012-13 eval plan.

The first is the deadline that was established in the law that was passed in the spring. That law applies to every district in the state. It says that districts need to have their 2012-13 evaluation plan submitted to State Ed by July 1 -- unless there are some issues that still need to be resolved through local negotiations at that point. The drop-dead date is, in fact, Jan. 17, 2013. If districts don't meet that deadline, they forfeit their increase in state aid -- which is more than $30 million for Buffalo.

So in terms of securing next year's increase in state aid, Rumore is correct. There is wiggle room with the July 1 deadline.

But there's another deadline that Buffalo has to worry about.

And that deadline is July 1 -- the deadline the district and the union agreed to when Buffalo submitted its school improvement plans for 2012-13. The six schools using the transformation model (those are the six that needed an eval plan for the current school year), plus any schools using a restart model (which involves hiring an outside educational partnership organization to run the building) must have that evaluation plan in place by July 1, according to Commissioner John King.

That could involve as many as nine schools. (At this point, it's not clear whether the School Board will move forward with restart plans for East and Lafayette, seeing as their EPO, Johns Hopkins, backed out a month ago, because the lack of an eval plan meant funding for the coming year was not a certainty. It's possible the board will decide to go with a turnaround plan for those schools instead, meaning teachers would have to be moved, but no eval plan is required.)

That means somewhere in the neighborhood of $13 million is at stake, riding on the district reaching an eval agreement for 2012-13 by July 1.

When I talked to King recently, he confirmed that July 1 deadline.

In terms of Buffalo meeting that deadline, there seem to be two likely trouble spots.

First, of course, the district and the union are waiting until the last week of June to start working on the 2012-13 eval plan. And Rumore himself said he doubts the four days that have been set aside will be enough time.

Second, there seems to be a difference of opinion regarding which set of rules the eval plan will have to conform to.

Rumore told me that State Ed told the district the eval plan would have to be put together under the old law, which was passed in 2010. But King told me in no uncertain terms that the eval plan would have to conform to the 2012 law.

What's the difference?

Well, one key difference is that under the old law, the classroom observation portion (worth up to 60 points) could consist of one observation, which the teacher is told about ahead of time. Under the new law, there must be at least two observations, and at least one of them has to be unannounced.

When I told Rumore that King said the evals must comply with the 2012 law, Rumore said, "Well, then we'll just have to litigate."

- Mary Pasciak

facebook.com/mary.pasciak     twitter.com/MaryPasciak    [email protected]

« Older Entries
Advertisement

About School Zone

Denise Jewell Gee

Denise Jewell Gee

Denise Jewell Gee joined The Buffalo News in 2007 and currently covers education and suburban schools. She also writes a column for the City & Region section and previously covered government in Erie County and Niagara Falls. Gee graduated from Boston University with degrees in journalism and political science.

@denisejewellgee | [email protected]


Tiffany Lankes

Tiffany Lankes

Tiffany Lankes joined The Buffalo News in 2013 and primarily covers the Buffalo Public Schools. She has written about education since 2003 at newspapers in Florida and New York. In 2008, she was a nominated finalist for The Pulitzer Prize. Lankes is an Amherst native and graduate of Sacred Heart Academy and Syracuse University. She started her journalism career writing for the News’ NeXt section.

@TiffanyLankes | [email protected]


Sandra Tan

Sandra Tan

Sandra Tan has been a cityside reporter for The Buffalo News since 2000 and currently covers the Buffalo Public Schools beat. She previously covered the Williamsville school district and was a full-time education reporter for five years prior to joining The News. She graduated from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.

@BNschoolzone | [email protected]


Deidre Williams

Deidre Williams

Deidre Williams began working for The Buffalo News in 1999 and currently covers Buffalo Public Schools. She formerly was a suburban reporter on the Northtowns beat and has been a cityside reporter covering communities since 2004. Williams has a mass communications degree from Towson University.

@DeidreWilliamsB | [email protected]

Subscribe

Advertisement