Bloomberg to Press for Electoral Reform

January 4, 2007 (GBN News): Mayor Michael Bloomberg may or may not be running for President, but he nevertheless intends to have a major influence on the process. GBN News has learned that at a University of Oklahoma conference next week, the Mayor plans to unveil his own blueprint for electoral reform. The plan would be modeled on his NY City school reforms and would radically change the way the country elects its Chief Executive.

The central aspect of the plan, according to GBN News sources, would replace the current system of public voting with one in which candidates would be evaluated largely through high stakes testing. This would have the benefit, Mr. Bloomberg will argue, of dispensing with the traditional partisan campaigning, and would instead involve candidates taking a series of test prep courses. Primary elections would no longer be necessary. Instead, preliminary rounds of testing would eliminate “failing” candidates, setting the stage for a November showdown between the two highest performing contenders that remain.

Election Day would also change drastically. Voters would stay home, saving on energy and travel costs, while the candidates spend the day taking a final, winner-takes-all test. Their scores will be evaluated by computer, and the contenders will receive a letter grade, A through F. 30% of the grade will be based on the actual test score, and 55% will involve the candidates’ progress since the previous test (known in political circles as “momentum”). The final 15% will be based on voter surveys, but these will be distributed only after the winner is announced.

The Mayor is said to have bristled at the suggestion that voters should receive their surveys before the election. “We value input from our citizens,” Mr. Bloomberg was said to have told associates. “We need to have them think they have a say in what happens. But the proof of the pudding is in the data, and we will have all the data we need to choose a leader who will be beyond partisanship, and who will be test prepped to address the fundamental challenges facing the nation.”

The Mayor’s proposed changes would not take effect until after the 2008 election, so just like his educational reforms, they will not affect him personally. Thus, should Mr. Bloomberg choose to run this year, he can still gain the Presidency the “old fashioned way”: by buying it.

The truth behind the new small schools

Andrew Wolf has a good column in the Sun about the deceptive ads from the Fund for Public Schools, called "Evander Childs Turnaround". The statistics clearly show that the students who were recruited for the new Gates-funded small schools now housed in the Evander building were much higher achieving before they ever enrolled in these new schools than those who had previously attended the school, undermining the administration's claim that it was its reforms that improved graduation rates.

The NY Times last spring ran both a credulous article and an editorial that read like press releases about the rise in graduation rates in these schools, without mentioning this salient fact. An excerpt from Wolf’s column:

The Fund for New York City Public Schools, a charitable group run by the Chancellor that once raised money to buy things to enhance the education of our public school children, is now spending millions on television commercials to convince the public that the programs are working. One of these commercials, highlighting "progress" at Evander Childs High School in the Bronx, has drawn particular attention on the growing network of blogs that critique the conditions in city schools.

Wolf credits the statistical findings that the students enrolled in these new schools started out way aheadto a recent Eduwonkette column and one posted last spring on the UFT blog by Leo Casey . Both were terrific pieces of work, and it’s great that this issue is finally receiving the attention it deserves, but it is long overdue.

Almost two years earlier, I pointed out some of these same facts to the Panel on Educational Policy and the United Parents Associations, in a summary posted here. Much of it was based on a report by Policy Studies Associates completed in March 2005, but suppressed for many months by New Visions before it was finally leaked to the NY Times eight months later. The authors of the PSA report based their analysis on background student data received directly from DOE. Too bad the reporters – and editors – of the Times seem to have conveniently forgotten its findings.

The PSA report examined not just those new schools placed in Evander but throughout the Bronx, those Gates-funded New Visions schools grandly called the New Century High Schools. It described how the creation of these schools had led to worse conditions and more overcrowding for those students left behind in the large schools who shared their facilities, and/or those who had been diverted to other already overcrowded schools nearby. And it pointed out how these excluded students were far needier academically than those who had been recruited for the new small schools:

Here is an excerpt from my summary:

“By gaining access to student records, the [PSA] analysis substantiates what DOE officials have long denied – that these schools recruit students with better scores, attendance, and overall records than the population from which they are drawn. See for example the recent [Sept. 2005] NYC Partnership report -- which misleadingly compares NCHS students to the average student citywide.

As the Policy Studies report points out, "These citywide comparisons are of only limited usefulness, since [this] initiative is intended to improve education opportunities and outcomes for students who might otherwise attend some of the city's most troubled high schools." Thus their evaluation properly compares the earlier records of students at the new small schools to those attending neighboring or host comprehensive high schools.

The students at the small schools had eighth grade math and reading scores significantly higher than their peers in the comparison schools; and 97% of them had been promoted in the prior year, compared with only 59% of the students at the comparison schools. They had better attendance records (91% compared to 81%), and were less likely to have been suspended. They were much less likely to need special education services. Only six percent of Bronx NCHS students had IEPs, compared with 25% at the comparison schools; and none of the NCHS special education students had the most serious disabilities. Indeed, teachers at the new small schools praised their principals for "recruiting more high-performing students".

I also pointed out that these schools did appear to be doing a better job keeping their students engaged – something ignored by the recent exposes – but not because of the size of the schools, as New Visions and the Gates foundation claim, but primarily because of their smaller classes:

While the students attending small schools maintained their previously good attendance, even the subset of students who previously had good attendance who enrolled at the larger high schools experienced a 10% drop in attendance in 9th grade. And while 6% of NCHS students transferred schools, and 10% were discharged from the system entirely, the transfer rate among incoming students at the larger schools was 14% and the discharge rate was 20% -- showing that more than a third of these students departed from the larger schools each year. …

Why were the new small schools more successful at keeping their students engaged? Students reported that their teachers were able to know them well, give them individualized instruction and help, and provide lots of attention in and out of class. As one pointed out, "the teachers I have had at other schools never knew me."

While class sizes at the larger high schools average 30 students or more, class sizes at most of the new small schools were between 13 and 20 students, as pointed out by the first year evaluation. The fact that these schools provided much smaller classes was noted by students themselves in surveys as their most valuable quality. As a result, “Teachers listen to you and get your opinion.” “In a normal high school, they don’t talk to you when you have a problem. They don’t care.” Another student said, “Slipping through the cracks? Not at this school!” Indeed, without smaller classes it's hard to see how these schools could succeed in their mission at all. …

If you take higher achieving students, and give them smaller classes, it should be no surprise to anyone that they will do far better and graduate in larger numbers than the lower-achieving students left behind in classes of 30 or more, attending overcrowded schools on double and triple shifts.

In the New Visions interim report there is a timeline in which by 2010, "innovative educational methods from NYC's small high schools" are supposed to "improve teaching and learning at the city's traditional high schools." This is critical, since even if its ambitious goal is achieved of 200 new smaller schools, fully two thirds of NYC students will continue to attend larger high schools.

As the smaller classes in the small schools appear to be their most successful elements, without a plan to eventually reduce class size and provide more individualized help to all high school students, it is difficult to see how this will ever occur.

As one parent recently asked, where did all those students who once attended Evander go? I wish I knew. Probably into the great ranks of the desaparecidos -- those thousands of poor souls who each year, magically disappear from the system, without being counted as dropouts.

My more recent City Council testimony from last November is here, with more about how the new small schools not only excluded our neediest students, but also provided them with much smaller classes -- and how the administration has no plan to deal with the increasing inequities of the system it has created.

See also our earlier post about the Fund for Public School's deceptive ads that claim class sizes have been reduced in our schools -- and how this organization, which was founded to provide more resources and programs for students in our turned into a PR arm for the Mayor's political image.

Diane Ravitch: Reflections on the Math Scores in New York City and State

Math scores are up in New York City on state tests in grades three through eight. They are up in every grade. That’s terrific news for kids and their teachers, who have been working hard to improve achievement.

Last year, math scores were down, so the increase this year was a welcome change.

Across the span of grades 3-8 in the city’s schools, there was a gain of 8.1 percentage points, as compared to lower scores in 2006. The state has tested grades 3-8 (in response to the federal No Child Left Behind law) for only two years, in 2006 and 2007, so it is impossible to compare the scores for grades 3-8 in 2007 to any other year except 2006. As a matter of record, the largest increase in a single grade in a single year in New York City occurred in 2003, when math scores in the fourth grade jumped by nearly 15 points. This was the last state test reported prior to the implementation of Chancellor Joel Klein’s reform program.

This is what happened in this year’s math tests:

Math scores are up across the state; the gains in New York City outpaced the state gains. In grades 3-8, 72.7% across the state met the standards in 2007, compared to 65.8% in 2006, a gain of 6.9 points statewide. In the same grades, the proportion of New York City’s students meeting the standards rose from 57.0% to 65.1%, a gain of 8.1 points. Very impressive gains indeed, for both the state and the city, especially the city.

When Chancellor Klein’s Children First reforms were launched in September 2003, 66.7% of children in fourth grade met the state standards in math. In 2007, 74.1% of fourth grade students in New York City met the state standards in math. That is a cumulative gain during the years of mayoral control of 7.4 points, or a shade less than 2 points per year.

Recently, the press department at the New York City Department of Education had been claiming credit for the huge gains of 2003, but these scores (14.7 points in a single year) were recorded before the implementation of Children First.

Apparently the press department now claims that the city has gained 27.8 percentage points in grades 3-8 since 2002, but that seems unlikely. For one thing, the state has been testing these grades for only two years (before then, only grades 4 and 8 were tested annually). The press office seems to have combined the results of the state tests for 2007 with city tests that were administered in earlier years and have since been abandoned. It is unlikely that any independent psychometrician would approve of mixing the results of these disparate tests, which were not based on the same standards nor equated for their reliability and validity.

In the eighth grade, the gains for the city were also impressive, since this has been a historically low-scoring grade, where only twice before have more than 40% of students met state standards. When the Klein reforms were launched in 2003, only 34.4% of eighth graders met the state standards; in 2007, 45.6% did, a gain of 11.2 points over four years. That is a demonstration of the power of intensive test-prep activities, in which Tweed has invested heavily.

To be sure, testing experts tend to be suspicious of big changes in large-scale assessment programs, whether they go up or down. When a city or a state or a nation reports large one-year gains or losses, experts tend to raise their eyebrows and wonder about the test itself or the way it was scored. Was it easier or harder?

Jennifer Medina of The New York Times wisely pointed out in her first-day story that a federal study released just a week ago found that New York state’s math tests in 2005 in fourth grade and eighth grade were easier than in many other states. Indeed, New York’s fourth grade test was ranked easier than those in 28 of 32 other states, while the eighth grade was ranked below those of 12 other states in rigor. The State Education Department claimed that it changed the test in 2006 and made it more rigorous, which explained the drop in math scores last year; this year, with the astonishing increases in districts across the state, the State Education Department claims credit for improvements in teaching, curriculum, alignment, teacher training, collaboration with higher education, and everything else imaginable. So, if scores go down, the test got harder, but when scores go up, it has nothing to do with the test!

When the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported the 2005 results for mathematics, New York state found itself in an embarrassing situation. According to federal data, New York claimed that an astonishing 87% of fourth grade students met state proficiency standards, but on NAEP tests in 2005, only 36% of fourth grade students were rated proficient. In eighth grade, the state claimed that 56% of students were proficient, but on the more rigorous NAEP, only 31% were proficient.

Once again, New York state has reported startling results, after last year’s dismal scores in math. The public can be relieved that its state and local leaders are on the job, raising scores diligently and boldly, doing all the right things in the classroom, the school, and the district.

I suggest that we wait patiently to see whether the recent gains on the state tests are reflected on the national tests when the results are posted in November 2007.

In the meanwhile, I suggest that Governor Spitzer think seriously about creating an independent agency to administer tests and report on test results, one staffed by top-notch psychometricians who take neither credit nor blame for test results in the state and local districts.

Diane Ravitch

For analysis of 2007 ELA click here and here

Police Raid Middle School To Enforce Bloomberg Cell Phone Prohibition

In Thursday's raid of Booker T. Washington Junior High School, police captured 400+ cell phones. See the NY1 stories here and here and the NY Times blog, Empire Zone. Parents were outraged at the tactics employed. Here is one account from the NY1 story:

"I saw a long line of students over here; I saw a number of police officers herding the children over there; and then they had a rope set to steer traffic so they were going up the stairs single file,” said parent Mark Stolar.

While the random scanning raids, carried out by a special branch of the NYPD, have been continuous in the public schools since the mayor implemented his ban, most don't get the type of coverage this one did. Earlier this year we reprinted a NY Civil Liberties Union account of strong arm tactics employed in a Bronx school.

The rough justice meted out to our children under the mayor's orders contrasts sharply with how the issue is addressed in the types of private schools the mayor's own children attended. A story in the NY Sun about smart phone use in Manhattan private schools included this account:

With his new BlackBerry, a junior at the Dalton School on the Upper East Side, Matthew Ressler, said he plans to keep track of his homework assignments, exam dates, basketball practices, and volunteer activities. "I think it will keep me better organized, and I won't have as many missed appointments," Matthew, 17, said of the device, a recent birthday gift from his mother. "It's really like you're organizing a professional career."

Click here for the full article, including the latest on what models are most popular and how one school supports downloads of the school calendar especially formatted for personal digital assistants.

Our demands are a bit more modest. All public school parent want is for our children to use their phones before and after school -- on their long commutes to/from school, activities and work. Is it so important for the mayor and chancellor to deny families this freedom? The reality is that the vast wealth of the men who control the public school system blinds them to the needs of ordinary people.

Daily News: Bloomberg Administration Spinning of Education Stories

The Daily News blog Daily Politics takes a close look at the massive Tweed PR machine. Liz Benjamin reports that a former TV reporter will be hired to "pitch 'positive' stories to the media". Public relations staff will be increased to twelve and staff expense will top $1 million before benefits. The ramp-up in spending makes for quite a contrast with the cuts hitting elementary school cafeteria workers.

Click here for the full story. We covered the food service cuts here.

If you have not already, check out Juan Gonzalez's excellent column exposing the truth behind the spinning of test scores. Click here for "Klein Smears Immigrant Kids."

A Closer Look at the Bloomberg Record

In this week's Weekly Standard, Michael Goodwin, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and Fred Siegel, professor of history and Cooper Union, take a scathing look at Michael Bloomberg's record of accomplishment as mayor. Bloomberg has long enjoyed favorable press coverage from the NY Times but with more rumors of his presidential run, expect some long overdue scrutiny from the national press.

Click here for the full article. An excerpt covering Bloomberg's education record follows:

"Manager Mike," the first mayor to also be the city's wealthiest man, put education at the center of his 2001 run for mayor. Beginning with his first campaign speech, he pledged "to do for education what Giuliani did for public safety." He invited people to judge him on the issue and said he wanted to be the "education mayor." Based in part on that promise of accountability, Bloomberg was given unprecedented mayoral control of the schools, which had been in the hands of a fractious and unaccountable Board of Education.

He has done a marvelous job of selling himself as a model school reformer to the New York press, to the New York elites, and to mayors across the country. Mayors Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles and Adrian Fenty of Washington, D.C., have spoken of Bloomberg as their model, "the standard-bearer for educational reform."

But the "reformed" school system led by Bloomberg's chancellor, Joel Klein, a former high-ranking Justice Department lawyer, has been more notable for administrative upheaval and noncompetitive contracts than higher test scores. Over the last five years--despite $4 billion in additional spending (the annual operating budget for education is now more than $16 billion and the city has a five-year, $10 billion education capital budget) and three harrowing reorganizations of the original "reform"--student performance has been basically flat. Reading scores in many elementary schools are up, but math scores in middle schools have declined. Graduation rates have inched up, but still barely 50 percent graduate in four years.

Bloomberg and Klein have lurched from their initial strong central control of the schools to a recent attempt at decentralization, both of which have sown confusion. Things began badly when they instituted a "progressive" education curriculum that had failed everywhere it was tried. More recently there has been a school bus fiasco: Roughly 7,000 students were left stranded in the dead of winter when a new routing plan imposed by an expensive consulting firm with a no-bid contract proved unworkable. Blasted by parents and critics, Bloomberg denounced them as know-nothings "who have no experience in doing anything." The parents, he snapped, just need to call 311, the all-purpose gripe-and-information line he established.

Parent Leader Dorothy Giglio Responds to the Mayor's Tirade

At his April 9th press conference, Mayor Bloomberg again lashed out at opponents of his latest schools restructuring. Dorothy Giglio has been an involved parent for almost twenty years and was elected by parents to lead the Region 6 High School Presidents Council. Here is her response to the Mayor's latest tirade:

I don't even know how to react to this latest slap in the face. I am amazed that I am suddenly a "special interest group". Well I am a parent who has an interest in seeing that the children get what they need and deserve and that parents have a voice in the process, so I guess that is a special interest.

It astounds me that after the Mayor and Chancellor took their dog and pony show all over town trying to drum up support for this new plan and received only concerns and jeers, from parents, teachers and community people that they would pull this blatant attempt and making it appear that support is there when it isn't. If I heard from one person that they thought this was a good idea, I might be willing to rethink my position. If I heard from one parent over the last five years that thought the first reorganization was good for their children or for them, I might rethink my position, but the opposite is exactly what I have heard, over and over again.

I have even spoken to teachers and administrators (who for fear of repercussions will not speak out) that the first reorganization was bad enough, but this one would be a disaster. An end to the system. To the people who lined up behind the Mayor, for what ever their "special" reason. Shame. They are pandering in order to gain jobs, or contributions or just because they consider him a friend.

Well as a parent, and a volunteer for over 20 years, I have seen plans come and go, and I will certainly admit that we did need some changes five years ago, but not what we got. There were inequities that had to be corrected in many areas, but what we wanted was a quality education for each child. We are still not getting that, instead we got a giant overpriced bureaucracy. Now they want to make it worse and keep attacking us because we want a voice. A real voice, not an hour of speechmaking and telling us how we are wrong.

I am asking every parent member in my Presidents Council to call their representatives today and tell them that they expect them to stand up for our parents and children in this latest insult and tell the Mayor he cannot buy or bully his way when it comes to our children.

Five weeks of anger and frustration

Last week marked the end of five weeks of parent meetings, at which Klein and the top brass at Tweed presented their reorganization and funding proposals. From Staten Island to the Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, the reception was far from enthusiastic.

The headlines tell the story. Note how not a single news article was published in any of the three largest dailies. Thank God for NY1, Metro, and the community papers! I don't think that Tweed will be keeping these in their clipping files.

Schools Chancellor Takes Heat At Town Meeting
NY1, March 8 , 2007

Crowd fumes as chancellor bolts from forum
Staten Island Advance, March 8, 2007

Mayor's School Reorganization Plan Faces Strong Opposition
NY1, March 1, 2007

The End of Mayoral Control
New York Sun, March 1, 2007

Parents Speak Out Against School Changes During Bronx Meeting
NY1, Feb 22, 2007

Klein gets Bronx cheer
Metro, Feb 21, 2007

Mom & Dad cut out of the loop - Parents demand input
Courier Life Publications, February 15, 2007

Klein booed at District 26 meet as he seeks support for ed plan
Times Ledger, February 15, 2007

Parents Grill Klein Over School Changes
Queens Chronicle, February 15, 2007

School Bus Debate Continues At Queens Meeting
NY 1, February 8, 2007

Klein Meets With Frustrated Parents in Brooklyn
WNYC February 8, 2007

CEC 27 parents critical of school restructuring
Times Ledger, February 8, 2007

Brooklyn Parents Hold Emotional Town Hall Meeting With Schools Chancellor
NY1, February 8, 2007

Klein takes heat from parents
Metro, February 7, 2007

Klein faces wrath at Forest Hills meet
Times Ledger, February 1, 2007