Gotham Schools columnist calls for Independent Review of NYC DoE school closing steamroller

January 6, 2010, a Gotham Schools columnist called for an independent review of the Bloomberg / Klein Department of Education administration's school closure tidal wave.

Here is the column; I do not concur with 100% of the sentiments. The author does make valuable points; and it is encouraging that a sort of mainstream site, outside of the education defense community, is airing an articulate critique of Bloomberg's rabid haste against schools.

Leadership, Law, and Policy
January 6, 2010
David Bloomfield
Closing Schools: A Call for Independent Review
by David Bloomfield

To write that I am a fan of closing failing schools is to fall into the same bombastic trap now enmeshing the Bloomberg administration. Before the Mayor took office, I wrote about the need to take forceful action against these educational mediocrities. But the wholesale closing and opening of schools that the Mayor has embarked upon is not the answer.

Replacing schools does not necessarily improve education. In the Mayor’s hands, it has become a shell game that defers instructional problems until they reappear elsewhere, to be met again with a similar reaction. Meanwhile, the often lengthy period of the schools’ decline — until so drastically and unconstructively arrested — has harmed thousands of students.

Until now, the Mayor’s strategy has been largely immune to public opposition. The Department of Education announced its hit list with little or no prior warning, the better to keep critics at bay. The new school governance statute, however, has created a process for notice and hearings that — while imperfect — will subject this year’s target list to formal scrutiny followed by likely approval by the mayor-controlled Panel for Educational Policy. Students, parents, teachers, and their supporters are organizing to reverse the DOE decree.

This is a public scenario that DOE operatives — probably with the best of technocratic intentions — wanted to avoid. School-based opposition was identified as the Achilles’ heel of reform after the failure of Mayor Giuliani’s initiative to have Edison Schools take over a number of failed schools. Families at the schools voted against the move.

But Bloomberg still seems committed to playing a power game despite the new legal landscape and a public increasingly fed-up with his paternalistic mien. His is likely to be a Pyrrhic victory, with his PEP majority ready to work his will but giving rise to increasingly mobilized school communities that will oppose even justified closings.

This warfare could be avoided if the Mayor took a different, more conciliatory tack. What is needed — both legally and instructionally — is to articulate a clear set of standards for determining school closures, with thorough review of actions taken to avoid the disruption attendant to this last resort and the possible impact of closure on other schools.

The Mayor has created a sense that these closures are less than inevitable but, rather, part of a considered strategy to free up space in certain schools for charters and preferred small schools. Rationales for school closure are a moving target. Some are cited for low graduation rates — though other schools, not slated for elimination, are worse. Or the emphasis shifts to enrollment, or application rates, or whatever other metric might appear deficient either currently or over time. The data seem a pretext for closure and, like so many dominoes, set up a new round of schools predetermined for failure.

These actions give the appearance of illegal caprice: the inconsistent application of otherwise rational criteria so that the action is ultimately unpredictable and subject to whim. If indeed there is a hidden, consistent rationale for these decisions, then it is the Mayor’s obligation to reveal it. Keeping the public off-balance through secrecy is deplorable. This is a typical private-sector strategy based on the competitive edge of proprietary trade secrets. The Mayor’s people still haven’t learned that such tactics are inappropriate in a democracy where an informed public is a paramount, legally-enforceable value.

The more objective, transparent, and deliberative process of school closure suggested here has been used successfully in State registration reviews and finds favor in State law. Education Law § 402-a recommends district creation of an Advisory Committee on School Building Utilization six months before a scheduled school closing, with a clear set of factors for committee review. This is a more independent process than the current New York City formula and could profitably supplement it without sacrificing urgency.

So far, though, Mayor Bloomberg has refused to see the writing on the wall. His unexpected announcement shortly before the holidays, of almost two dozen school closures with a quickly scheduled series of required hearings prior to the PEP determinations on January 26 manifests a continued disdain for the spirit of recent statutory changes.

As a result, the Legislature should publicly contemplate buttressing the new but demonstrably ineffective requirements of Education Law §§ 2590-e(21), 2590-f(1)(w), and 2590-h(2-A) with mandatory application of Education Law § 402-a unless the Mayor recognizes that his policy of intentional opacity will no longer be tolerated.

The days of Oz and the application of naked, self-justifying power are over. If the Mayor is right, then he should step from behind the curtain and allow independent review of his decision to close each school.

Meet at Norman Thomas HS! (Jan. 11) Converge on Tweed Courthourse (Jan. 13)

Mobilize to defend public education in New York City!

Mobilize to defend teaching as a career!

If we do not defend schools under threat of DoE closure, hundreds more teachers will become ATRs (absent teacher reserve) this year!

Do Not forget the World War II German pastor's (Martin Niemöller) warning about ignoring the plight of oppressed groups,
before you become the next victim of the New York City Department of Education.

Attend Monday (Jan. 11, 2010) night's public meeting at Norman Thomas High School; see details in box in right panel, "Activism Calendar."

The following is a UFT memo, calling for a concentration of union reps upon DoE headquarters at Tweed Courthouse (south side of Chambers Street, between Broadway and Centre Street), on Wednesday night, January 13 (CTE pertains to Career and Technical Education):

As you are aware, the struggle over the DoE's plans to close twenty schools – including fifteen high schools – is growing. Last Thursday evening, there were turnouts of over 1000 people in opposition at two meetings – Columbus in the Bronx and Jamaica in Queens. A real grass roots movement against these closures has begun to emerge.


Reflecting the high priority of this struggle, we are once again holding a joint High School Committee-CTE Committee meeting this month. The High School Committee was originally scheduled for this coming Wednesday in Queens, but we are switching it back to the UFT's Headquarters in lower Manhattan. The DoE's Citywide Council on High Schools meets Wednesday at 6 PM at Tweed, and we would like to adjourn our assembly at 5:30 and head en masse to that meeting, which will be addressing the school closures. It would be ideal to have a powerful turnout from all high schools – not just those slated for closure – at the meeting.


UFT HIGH SCHOOL COMMITTEE – CTE COMMITTEE MEETING



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2010



4:15 p.m.



UFT CENTRAL OFFICES

52 BROADWAY



DIRECTIONS:

WALL STREET STOPS ON THE ‘2,’ ‘3,’ ‘4' AND ‘5' SUBWAY LINES

BROAD STREET STOP ON THE ‘J,’ ‘M’ AND ‘Z’ SUBWAY LINES

RECTOR STREET STOP ON THE ‘R’ AND ‘W’ SUBWAY LINES


Refreshments will be served.

Daily News Prints Teacher Op-Ed Criticizing Mayoral Control

Sunday, May 24, 2009 the Daily News printed an opinion piece by Queens teacher Arthur Goldstein:
"Teacher Against Mayoral Control: All that power hasn't made things better"

As a teacher in an A-rated school, I believe mayoral control has been an absolute disaster.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our federal and state governments have checks and balances so no one person has total control, which is a synonym for dictatorship.

City kids need reasonable class sizes and decent facilities. Under Mayor Bloomberg, class sizes just took their biggest leap in 10 years.

Some people say class size doesn't matter, but even the best teachers can give more attention to 20 kids than 34. The fewer kids I have, the more individual attention each one gets.

Under this mayor, charter schools get the best of everything, including small classes and new technology.

My high school was built to hold 1,800 but enrolls 4,450 students. My kids sit in a crumbling trailer, with no technology and often no heat in the winter. So much for efficiency.

The mayor says it's his way or "the bad old days." That's a false choice. We need a system that works better than what we have.

We need a chancellor who works for the kids, not the mayor. The chancellor needs to fight for what's best for kids whether or not the mayor agrees. He can't do that if the mayor can fire him for not following his orders.

A few years ago, the mayor fired two members of the Panel for Educational Policy who had the nerve to disagree with him.

Consequently, the PEP is a mayoral rubber stamp. No mayoral appointee dares to stand up for kids.

This mayor boasts about accountability. Teachers are accountable. Principals are accountable, but the only time the mayor is accountable is once every four years.

That's not enough, particularly for a man who is prepared to spend $100 million to buy reelection and who scoffed at the voters by changing the term limits law they twice affirmed.

Four more years of this system guarantees the privatization and destruction of public education in New York City. That's a prospect we should all oppose.

Diane Ravitch's sterling analysis of mayoral control

Diane Ravitch wrote a moderate length piece in "Huffington Post" on mayoral control in New York City. She debunked the mayor's myths on the efficacy of mayoral control, and she pointed out has Mayor Michael Bloomberg has played loose and fast with statistics on student performance. She conceded that gains had been made; but she strongly disputed the claims of miraculous double-digit increases in performance. (Her piece was in response to a glowing report in "USA Today" that addressed the national trend toward mayoral control. OK, it is exactly two years old. But the point remains: the mayor has pushed a myth that mayoral control has produced miraculous improvements in student performance. Note the paragraph that I have given bold type: it argues that improved student performance has been the result of reforms implemented under the Chancellorships of Rudy Crew and Harold Levy.)

USA Today Gets It Wrong on Mayoral Control of Schools
Posted March 23, 2007
I don't know why. I can't help it. I just can't tolerate inaccuracy and misuse of facts. I do my best to get the facts right when I write something, and I expect others to do the same. Ordinarily, when I read something in the newspaper that I know is wrong, I have to forget about it because I don't write letters to the editor (by the time the letter appears, no one remembers the original story). But the beauty of the blogosphere is that I can nail the errors and do it fast.

My latest beef is with USA Today, which ran a cover story on March 21 with the headline "More Mayors Are Moving to Take Over School Systems." The article correctly contended that there is a movement in which mayors are taking control of urban school systems. There is indeed. But the article was accompanied by a misleading and inaccurate graphic called "How school takeovers have fared." The data referred to changes in test scores in Chicago and New York. I am not familiar with the Chicago numbers, but the New York numbers (supplied by Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Department of Education) are grossly misleading.

The chart showed that New York City's test scores had soared from 2000-2005 in fourth grade English language arts (from 42% to 54%), in fourth grade mathematics (from 46% to 78%), in eighth grade mathematics (from 23% to 41%), while remaining flat in eighth-grade English language arts (from 33% to 33%).

It is strange, however, to use the data from 2000, since the State Legislature granted the mayor control of the schools in 2002, and he did not install his reforms in the schools until September 2003. So the first state test results that reflect the mayor's reforms were reported in 2004. Since the mayoral reforms began, there have been three state tests from 2004 to 2006.

So what has happened to scores since the mayor's package of reforms was installed? Instead of a 12 percentage point gain in fourth grade English arts, the gain was 6.4 percentage points (from 52.5% meeting state standards to 58.9%). Instead of a 32 percentage point gain in fourth grade mathematics, there has been a gain of 4.2 percentage points (from 66.7% to 70.9%). Instead of an 18 point percentage gain in eighth grade mathematics, there has been a gain of 4.5 percentage points (from 34.4% to 38.9%). Only in eighth grade English was there an appreciable gain, from 32.6% to 36.6%, but the score is only 1 percentage point higher than it was in 1999.

The gains since mayoral control are thus respectable but modest, not the miraculous double-digit increases portrayed in USA Today's graphic. For sure, there have been no historic gains since the mayor took charge. Maybe some day there will be, but not yet.

None of the gains, by the way, match the test score gains in the city schools that occurred the year before mayoral control began. In that year, 2002-2003, fourth grade math scores leapt by nearly 15 points, and there were double-digit increases in some of the city's poorest neighborhood schools. Also that year, fourth grade English scores went up by 6 points, which was equal to the increase recorded in the next three years of mayoral control.

The intriguing question, therefore, is what happened in the year before the mayor put his programs in the schools, because that was the year that achievement went up dramatically, especially in historically low-performing schools. Most experts at the time credited the improvement in test scores to the reforms initiated by the previous two chancellors of the schools, Rudy Crew (now superintendent of schools in Miami) and Harold Levy (now at Kaplan Learning).

The story also implied that New York City had eliminated an elected central school board, which is not true. New York City has not had an elected central school board for more than a century.

The story rightly pointed out that the elimination of all school boards--both central and community-based--has left many parents feeling disenfranchised and angry. Anyone wanting to see what New York City's parent leaders think about mayoral control should take a look at the NYC public school parent blog, where parents express their frustration about overcrowded schools and overcrowded classes (the largest class sizes in the state) and their anger at being marginalized and excluded in a school system that has no lay boards at all. (I blog there too, having been named an honorary NYC public school parent by the parent activists who created the site.)

Two months ago, in late January, the Department of Education inexplicably reorganized the school system's vast school bus routes, leaving thousands of children without bus service during the coldest days of the year. The uproar that followed ignited a parent protest movement against the mayor's Department of Education. Parents became aware that this hare-brained scheme was concocted by a team of highly paid consultants from a firm called Alvarez & Marsal, which received a $16+ million no-bid contract; half a dozen of the consultants are paid $1 million each per year to advise the Department on cost-cutting. This is the same firm, by the way, that previously managed the St. Louis school district, which was just taken over by the state of Missouri because of its academic and financial condition.

One of the great claims for mayoral control is that it establishes clear accountability. But regarding the school bus fiasco, no one was held accountable; no heads rolled. Outraged parents haven't calmed down since then.

If there were a school board, the parents would have been lining up to make their voices heard, face to face. But the mayor brushed off the critics and hired a "family engagement officer" at $150,000 a year, hoping to mollify the parents. The protest movement seems to be growing. It turns out that education requires some form of democratic governance, and that is the role of a school board, whether it is appointed or elected.

School Governance flyer - ICE's excellent critique & recommendations

It is a travesty that the New York City Education Department (formerly the Board of Education) is run so autocratically and that overpaid, no-bid consultants soak up funds that would be better used in the classroom. Additionally, it is a travesty that Chancellor Joel Klein has NO educational experience and that the Education Department has rushed administrators through the Leadership Academy. The result? Far too many principals and assistant principals now have as little as two or three years in the classroom as teachers.

The following is the content of the Independent Community of Educators caucus of the United Federation of Teachers (ICE-UFT)'s flyer that outlines an alternative vision of school governance. This makes it all the more essential that concerned individuals (parents, teachers) attend the final public meeting on school governance, on March 20 at the Marriott Hotel, on Adams Street in downtown Brooklyn. (See my blog post of March 1 on this issue.) There is an imminent deadline of June 2009 for finalization of any revision of school governance policy.
Now, the flyer's contents:

Independent Community of Educators
Minority Report: School Governance

The imminent deadline of June 2009 does not permit time to deliberate and articulate the details of a comprehensive governance structure. A Transition Team, appointed by the NYS Ed. Department for a period of no longer than one year should be established to maintain the system on an interim basis and plan for the structure. Public hearings should be held. They should be well-publicized and held at times and places that insure maximum turnout.
We suggest the following guidelines:
1. The system must be based on democratic participation of the community with decision making flowing from the school level to a central body.

*
The creation of true school leadership committees with shared decision making, as defined by NYS Law, will create a Comprehensive Education Plan which will set goals and make recommendations about improving the quality of education in each school, with reference to but not dictated by citywidepolicy.The administration, faculty and parents will have an equal role on the committee. In their augmented role in the school committees will be reconstituted, with special attention to making them more inclusive and accessible to teachers and parents.
*
The duly elected and well trained committees appoint their principals who will maintain a collaborative relationship with the committee and the entire staff.
*
Management begins at the school level, with a central organization to standardize some components, manage overall system responsibilities (licensing, payroll, contract negotiation, etc.)
*
District Superintendents are selected by school leadership committees in the District in which they serve. The major function of the District Superintendents will be to provide friendly criticism and support, monitor the implementation of the Comprehensive Education Plan and to advocate for the needs of their respective schools.

2. The DOE must be politically neutral and not tied to any one political office. A school system cannot change/adjust according to the whim, caprice, political aspirations, career, or ideology of a politician. It must be run as an independent office with responsibilities to the people of the City and operate within the regulations and laws of the NYS Ed. Department.

*
A Central Board responsible for general and overall policy and oversight of all services that are centrally located will be made up of five elected members, one from each borough; one appointee from each of the borough presidents and three Mayoral appointees. A teacher representative will be selected by the UFT. All will be elected/appointed for set terms and removed by the Central Board by a 2/3 vote only for cause.
*
The Central Board will appoint a Chancellor, who has demonstrated success as an educator.
*
The Chancellor’s role will be to advocate for policy, law and funding; develop guidelines, benchmarks and tracking systems for school needs and achievement; report to all elected officials; monitor the District Superintendents; establish a human resource department; negotiate contracts, and insure that they are upheld.

3. Benchmarks are to be established and evaluations conducted by an independent agency.

*
Evaluations of schools and students should be based on multiple measures and should be used for gathering information in order to provide support.
*
Responsibility for the analysis and evaluation of the Dept. of Education's programs will be given to the Public Advocate. The Advocate's Office will have statutory authority to review all Dept. of Education documents and willreceive all resources currently allocated to the Dept. of Education for the review and analysis of their programs.
*
The Advocate's Office will be required to produce an annual report evaluating the progress of the Dept. of Education in advancing students' skills, reducing absenteeism, increasing the high school graduation rate and any other measure that would demonstrate success. The Advocate's Office would then produce reports based on an established schedule determined by when data is available.

4. Inherent in the system design must be respect and support for all constituents.

*
School leadership committees, representative of their schools’ constituents, (staff, parents, students in the middle and high schools and their community) under the leadership of democratically oriented principals decide the programs and teaching strategies best suited to their students. Teachers are respected for their experience and expertise in teaching and learning.
*
All schools provide a comprehensive education program including the core curricula areas, performing and visual arts, health and physical education, career and technical education, and technology.

5. Funding must be fair, equitable, transparent, with budget decisions made at the school level.

*
A larger portion of the funding received by the federal, state and city will be managed by the schools. The school leadership committees will determine how funds are spent.
*
Equitable funding developed by central staff and approved by the Central Board will determine how much money each school receives. Budgets and expenditures at all levels of the system will be made available for review by the public. The City Council is to be involved in this process.
*
Funding and spending will be monitored by the Comptroller.
*
All contracts will be put out to open bid and made public via the Internet.

6 . School and District lines must be drawn in a way to preserve and strengthen the integrity of neighborhoods and communities.

*
In the creation of district lines, consideration can be given to existing community planning boards/combining boards.
*
All registered voters and parents are eligible to vote for district councils.
*
Non-registered parents can vote on separate voting machines at each poll site dedicated solely for the purpose of electing the councils or with a mail in ballot. While this will necessitate an additional eligible voters list, the input of the public is necessary in a democratic society that must take responsibility for schools.
*
District councils will serve as a public forum for parents and community and serve as a liaison between the District and the Central Organization.

7. A system of checks and balances will be put into place to give voice to all constituents.

*
Parents and Students will have access to an Education Council within the Office of the Public Advocate to provide assistance and guarantee its rights. School staff will be represented by their unions.
*
The City Council will have non-voting representation on the Central Board.
*
Professionals creating and implementing instructional policy should have classroom teaching experience so that they have a clear understanding of the implications of their decisions.
*
The Chancellor, principals, assistant principals and other pedagogical supervisors must be experienced educators, with a minimum of five years of classroom experience; no waivers will be granted.

February, 2009
ice-uft.org

Again, click here for the ICE-UFT "Minority Report" flyer on school governance.

You, the public, and your last chance to speak on mayor control of the schools

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has transformed the New York City school system by centralizing the schools under his control.
He has had as a partner, Joel Klein, to serve as schools chancellor. He is a corporate lawyer, who had no experience with the education field.
Seldom mentioned among education critics has been the role by computer software and operating system monopolist Bill Gates. Through his Gates Foundation he has pushed his educational ideas and agenda. The roles by Klein and Gates are problematic because they lack experience in education. Schools are not businesses; they cannot be addressed in such a manner.
Later this month, on March 20, 10 AM, the public will have its last chance to speak out on school governance. People will have an opportunity to express their reactions to the direction of school policy. People will have much to say about the Mayor and the Chancellor.
The meeting will be in the auditorium of the Brooklyn Marriott Hotel at 333 Adams Street. (Take the 2,3,4, or R to Boro Hall or the A, C or F train to Jay Street/ Boro Hall.)

(See the ICE faction of the United Federation of Teachers and their report suggesting an alternate direction for school governance.)
Another teacher's public statement against the UFT's stance on school governance.

Privatization of government, policy
Many critics have criticized, and will criticize on that day, the closed manner of public policy making by the Mayor and Chancellor. However, they should also criticize the overlap of private organizations in the city's education system. We have a democracy so that we can participate in our government. Instead, the mayor has elided any public role. In its place he has concentrated all decision making power for himself and the chancellor. And along the way he has made private institutions have a central role. He has hired no-bid private consultants.
The critics should not forget to criticize Bill Gates' role. What right does Gates have in setting an agenda for our public schools. Through his foundation he has pursued an agenda of replacing large established schools with smaller schools. Where was the public discussion of this matter? Where was any discussion that cited literature and weighed the benefits and disadvantages of pursuing a small school movement?

On another front, in a period of budget crisis, when there is a hiring freeze on teachers, the city is hiring more bureaucrats and lawyers at the Education Department's Tweed offices. (See "The New York Daily News," February 23, 2009.") This further illustrates an imperviousness on the part of the mayor and chancellor.