Talk of out School - join us next Wed. on WBAI at 10 AM with Wendy Lecker and Senator John Liu

Next week on Wednesday Sept 18 at 10 AM, I will have two guests, "Talk out of School": attorney Wendy Lecker of the Education Law Center, who will bring us up to date on the class size lawsuit of on nine NYC parents vs the state and city of New York for their failure to lower class size.

My other guest will be  Senator John Liu, chair of the NYC Education Committee in the State Senate, who will tell us what new laws, funding levels and other developments we may expect in the coming legislative session that affect our public schools. I always find what goes on in Albany to be very mysterious - hopefully straight-talking Senator Liu, who was formerly a City Council member and NYC Comptroller, will help us undo some of that mystery.  Please listen in at 99.5 FM or at wbai.org and call in at 212-209-2877.

Also, if you haven't yet, please check out our first show from last Wednesday, co-hosted with Carol Burris.  We focused on the diversity and integration proposals of the School Diversity Advisory Group, with guests Shino Tanikawa of the SDAG, and Alex Rodriguez and Tiffani Torres of Teens Take Charge.  You can livestream or download the program here.

Shino and co-host Carol Burris at the WBAI studio - check out the words on the wall we aren't allowed to say on radio.

Updated with video: mayoral debate with Weiner making his first appearance

The Weiner scrum (Credit:  @NYDNLemire)

Updated: now with video, excerpts of highlights below.

Despite the Anthony Weiner press hysteria, (it was his first appearance at a mayoral debate; Michael Powell of NYTimes tweeted "Cluster idiocy of press on full display at Weiner a thon educational debate") yesterday’s education forum hosted by New Yorkers for Great Public Schools was very interesting.   

Zakiyah Ansari did a great job moderating, and there were very good questions asked by parents and students.  Chris Quinn didn’t attend, though Zakiyah said the date of the debate had been changed twice to accommodate Quinn’s schedule.

Weiner stood out from the crowd not just because of the paparazzi scrum and excessive media attention; he was the only candidate to come through the audience and shake hands.  He was the only candidate to stand while answering questions, the only one to say no when asked if he would stop having safety agents under control of police rather than principals, and the only one against requiring arts in every school.  

Weiner was quite resistant to altering his stance on increasing the number of suspensions for unruly students, justifying that by saying we have the largest classes in 20 years (actually 14) which leads to more disruptions.  (Why not reduce class size instead?)

Credit: Daily News

There were several questions about Eva Moskowitz, director of Success Academy charter chain, as well as the hot-button issue of charter co-locations.  When asked if Eva gets unfair treatment by DOE, all said yes;  Weiner commented, ”I have no bloody idea…Uh, sure. … It seems to be the answer of the day.”

Liu and de Blasio were for giving Community Education Councils approval over co-locations; Weiner said more “community input” was needed in co-location decisions.  In underutilized schools, he suggested, why not put gifted program instead, or give the school a gym or science lab?   Thompson again called for a co-location “moratorium” (but for how long?)

They all cited the fact that either they had attended NYC public schools (Albanese, Liu, Thompson, Weiner), or their moms had been public school teachers (Thompson, Weiner), or they themselves had been teachers (Albanese), or their kids currently attended public schools.(Liu, de Blasio.)  They all were against the current over-emphasis on high stakes testing.  They all would fight for CFE funds from state.  They all were against closing schools rather than helping them improve.

While De Blasio and Liu said they would raise taxes on the wealthy to fund schools, Thompson was grilled on his pledge against raising taxes.  He responded he would cut contracts, consultants and wasted funds for networks “first.”  As someone who agrees there is tremendous waste in education spending, I don’t see that this would suffice, given the fact that school budgets have been cut to the bone and that teachers are looking for retroactive raises.

De Blasio said "Nothing will help our schools more than reducing class sizes," which begs the question of why he focuses instead on expanding preK and afterschool. 

Some new issues were brought up, not mentioned in previous debates: John Liu said he would bring back more bilingual programs, especially for older students who were new immigrants. Albanese said principals should be rated partly on how well they engage parents.   

When asked about improving special education, Liu said 25% of kids do not get their mandated services, and there should be a “balance” between inclusion and separate programs for special needs kids.  De Blasio said parents of students with disabilities get “treated like dirt.”  I didn’t hear a real solution, though, to the problems of special education from any of them. 

They all came out against the state and city plan to sharing personal student data with inBloom Inc. and for-profit vendors.  Afterwards, I asked Thompson if he would ask Merryl Tisch, his campaign chair and Regents head to pull out of inBloom, as she could stop it in a second.  He said he would. 

Here are some news links: NY Times, Daily News, WSJ, NY Post,  Huffington Post, NY Mag, City and State. GothamSchools has the audio; I’ll post the video as soon as it’s available.

Video of Mayoral forum, moderated by Diane Ravitch; and will Bill Thompson ask Merryl Tisch to stop the sharing of students' personal data with inBloom?

Here is video from the May 2 mayoral forum in Brooklyn, moderated by Diane Ravitch and sponsored by .  Candidates included John Liu, Bill Thompson, Bill de Blasio, and Sal Albanese.

Bill Thompson, candidate for Mayor

Parent Voices

It was an encouraging evening.  All said no more graded school report cards; all said in (a rather vague way) they would work for smaller classes.

Asked about whether they would expand charters and/or stop providing free space, Thompson said he would support a moratorium on co-locations and would focus on the million students on public schools; Albanese said that charter schools are a distraction and a way to attack organized labor. De Blasio used the issue to point out Quinn was not present, attacked Eva Moskowitz, and said he would start protecting existing schools rather than force co-locations on them.  Liu said that the deck was stacked in favor of charters because of their school population of fewer at-risk kids, and their extra funding. 

Merryl Tisch, Regents Chancellor and Thompson's campaign chair

He said, what kind of message are we sending to the public school children in the co-located building", that they are second class citizens?  (Unfortunately, none of them said if they would start charging charters rent.)

Best part of forum is is at 59.30 minutes in, when Diane asks whether they would pull out of the state and city plan to share private student information with inBloom Inc.  The audience, claps, and all the candidates vociferously respond, "absolutely not!"  Each of them point out the huge risks and conflicts of interest involved, especially as inBloom's operating system is being built by Wireless, run by former Chancellor Joel Klein, and owned by Murdoch's NewsCorp -- with a terrible record on privacy.

Thompson agrees that this is outrageous: "We are NOT going to release personal student information."  He mentions that when he was head of the Board of Education, the Police Department wanted personal student data turned over and he refused. "Will we turn this information over to inBloom, NO WE ARE NOT," he says vehemently.

Yet Bill Thompson's campaign chair is Merryl Tisch, who is 100% behind the inBloom plan as Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents. New York is now the ONLY participant in this scheme that is going ahead with sharing personalized student data from the entire state, now that Louisiana, Georgia, Delaware, and Kentucky have pulled out.   If Merryl Tisch said no to inBloom, she could stop it in a dead second.

On Tuesday, there is a protest at Teacher's College graduation against awarding Tisch a special honor. Here is a letter from Celia Oyler, a TC professor about this; and an article by Fred Smith, a TC alumnus explaining why.  Tisch has supported high stakes testing, the evaluation of teachers by means of test scores, school closings, the expansion of charters, and now, the sharing of personal student data with private corporations without parental consent -- all policies opposite to Thompson's public positions.

At the very least, Thompson should ask Tisch to stop the inBloom project now.

Two new proposals to revamp mayoral control; about time!

State Sen. Velmanette Montgomery on  steps of City Hall today

State Senator Velmanette Montgomery of Brooklyn and Assemblymember David Weprin of Queens announced today they would introduce a new bill that would end mayoral control, by taking away his supermajority on the Board of Education, now called the Panel for Educational Policy.

The Board (or Panel) would continue to have 13 members:  five appointed by the borough presidents, all public school parents, as now; and four appointed by the mayor, one a public school parent.  Four members would also be appointed by the City Council: One a representative of a college or university; one a member of a parent's organization; one a member of a Parent's Educational Council [CEC?]; and one at large. 

The Chancellor would be appointed by the Board rather than the mayor.  

Expect howls of protest by the tabloids tomorrow, saying this is a teacher union plot but nothing could be further from the truth.  The outrage and frustration among parents has never been more intense, resulting from the mayor's brutal steamrolling of his policies, sticking it in our faces , and continually implementing policies that damage our kids and our schools.   As Mike Reilly of CEC 31 put it today, "Instead of parental engagement we have parental estrangement."

Just two examples:  every year parents say their top priority on the DOE's own survey is smaller classes;  yet every year class size increases, and the mayor has the nerve to say he would double class sizes if he could.  Meanwhile, corrupt multi-million dollar contracts are renewed and rubber-stamped by the PEP for companies that are either under investigation for having stolen from DOE  or have been proven already to have overcharged DOE in the past. The latest outrage is Bloomberg's rejection of the teacher evaluation deal which will cost our schools $250 million, because he wouldn't allow for a two year sunset. 

Speaking eloquently and passionately in support of the bill were Mona Davids of the NYC Parents Union, CMs Robert Jackson and Jumaane Williams, Santos Crespo head of Local 372/DC 37, Carmen Alvarez and Emil  Pietromonaco of the UFT, and Sam Pirozzolo, President of the Community Education Council 31 in Staten Island. The consensus among the legislators, parents and union officials is that we cannot wait until mayoral control sunsets in 2015; the devastation to our children and our schools is too great; and we need to make this an issue in the upcoming mayoral election as well.

Meanwhile, last week, City Comptroller John Liu, a mayoral candidate, came up with a different proposal to reform the PEP.  According to his proposal, a nominating committee made of stakeholder groups will select two or three candidates for each seat on the PEP  after going through a transparent public process.  The mayor would then appoint from the list of candidates chosen by the committee.  The members would serve fixed and staggered four year terms, and once appointed, they could not be removed without due cause, rather than fired by the mayor at will any time he or she pleases, as Bloomberg has done in he past.  The PEP members would have staff support and compensation as well, allowing the entire operation to be more professionally run.  And though the Mayor would continue to appoint the Chancellor, the Chancellor would have to be an educator and the PEP would have to approve his or her selection.

I think that most parents would agree that either of these proposals, though not a complete fix of the governance problem, would be a significant improvement over the absurdly dictatorial system we have now.  On our NYC education list serv, Patrick Sullivan, the Manhattan member of the PEP (whom at the press conference today Robert Jackson called the "ideal member" for his independence and sharp questioning of DOE officials) wrote  that "best and most appropriate choice" would be  an elected board." And:

I don't see any justification for denying urban parents this avenue of participation while allowing it for everyone else. Are we somehow less competent to oversee educational policy and budgets?  Short of that Liu's proposal for fixed terms is good.

I don't see a lot of benefit to switching around which electeds make appointments.  I've been fortunate to have been appointed by Scott Stringer but I think many electeds would be swayed by influence of big money especially those interests who don't send their own children to public school but have a lot to say about how our children are educated.

It is true that many of the other borough appointees have been constrained in voting their conscience, and have gone along with the mayoral majority because their patrons, the borough presidents, have too often been manipulated and controlled by Bloomberg's power and money; except that is, Manhattan Borough President Stringer and the Bronx BP Ruben Diaz Jr.  Yet while an elected school board for NYC would be ideal, it seems very far off and too often, elections are themselves often "swayed by the influence of big money."

Anyway, I think it is our job as parents to support any and all efforts to limit the destructive one-man rule , and demand that the mayoral candidates let us know what their positions are on this issue and whether they would support more checks and balances in the system.  What do you think?  Please leave your comments below.

The first mayoral debate on education!

This afternoon, the first debate on education among the mayoral candidates took place, hosted by Manhattan Media.  The candidates included two Bills, one Tom, one John and one Christine, absent Scott Stringer, given his announcement today that he will run for City Comptroller instead. 

The consensus among most of the observers I talked to afterwards is that the candidates did not distinguish themselves much from one another  on the hot-button issues.  Also, despite the best efforts of the moderators, Lindsey Christ of NY! And Philissa Cramer of GothamSchools, who tried to get them to be as specific as possible, given the limited time frame, there was a lot of ambiguity in their responses.  Below are the questions and answers, as best as I could record them:

Question: Would you select a Chancellor who is an educator, and would that person be from inside the DOE or outside the system?

Bill Thompson: Would choose an educator and someone outside the system; the “best of the best.”

Bill De Blasio: An educator, with a screening process that includes the public (how?).

Tom Allon: Would choose someone like the following individuals: former Deputy Chancellor Eric Nadelstern, Jennifer Raab, head of Hunter College, Linda Darling-Hammond professor at Stanford, or John White (formerly of DOE and now the controversial Louisiana education chief) .

John Liu: An educator, possibly from within the DOE.

Christine Quinn:  Would rule no one out, there are many great people inside DOE including principals, network people and Superintendents.  Jennifer Raab is a “fascinating” example, who was not an educator when appointed head of Hunter but has done an excellent job.

Question: The next mayor will probably have to negotiate a new contract with the UFT; would you push for merit pay and/or limit tenure?

DeBlasio: I want to compliment Cory Booker, who got an excellent contract for Newark teachers [I don’t think Booker had much to do with it]; he put incentives into system to get teachers to teach in high need subject areas like science.  As to tenure, there is “merit” in new state system; it’s a “wtep in the right direction”; he would partner with the union on improving the system.

Allon:  For merit pay, would establish a new “career” track; gives example of New American Academy which pays master teachers more. 50% attrition rates of teachers in 5 years a disgrace; he would weaken tenure (how that would improve attrition unclear).

Liu: There’s a reason for tenure:  teacher jobs were used by pols to give jobs to cronies etc.; tenure should be protected.  Merit pay; depends how you measure “merit”; in the current system there’s a 40-50% margin of error; first you need an evaluation system that makes sense.

Thompson: NYC tried merit pay before; it hasn’t worked, but he wouldn’t take it off the table.

Quinn: Newark contract should be model for nation; it was developed in a collaborative process ; gives extra pay to teachers to teach in tougher schools; would not support score-based merit pay; teachers do not go into profession for money. (So why would financial incentives work to attract them to high needs schools?)  Tenure: agrees with new state system that if you have a poor evaluation two years in a row, with mentoring and support, you should lose tenure. She would push to implement this system in NYC.

Question #3: What one thing would you do to improve school system?

Liu: Would hire more guidance counselors, so instead of 1 per 100 students.

Thompson: Moratorium on school closings.

Allon: No more standardized testing in 1^st through 5th grade (unfortunately there are federal and state mandates requiring testing in 3-5th grades); make foreign language mandatory in elementary schools and require at least two years classroom experience for all teachers.

De Blasio: fund Universal preK and more afterschool programs.

Quinn: stop vilifying teachers, tone down rhetoric, reduce test prep, intervene in struggling schools to get them help they need before closing.

Question #4:  Have schools gotten better or worse under Bloomberg?

De Blasio: Progress has “stalled”; we need “reset” and cannot continue status quo.

Allon: Schools slightly better, but we need to properly train teachers, need at least 3 years of clinical practice;

Liu: Not sure, some schools better, some worse, hard to measure; we need to reduce emphasis on high-stakes testing; stop co-locations and listen to parents more, make sure students really ready for college.

Thompson: Mayoral control has not worked; there’s been an excessive focus on test-taking.

Quinn: tThere’s been progress, but not enough; need to bring parents in real ways; too much test prep, should be more emphasis on college completion.

Question #5: Would you give charters free rent in public school buildings?

Quinn: I would not stop this practice, though all sides think current system is broken, including charter proponents. Process needs to be more “transparent.”

De Blasio: Opinions of parents ignored and system undemocratic; there needs to be more parent engagement, if there’s a bad plan should be changed.

Thompson: System of inequities, students at public school feel they're 2^nd class citizens; should be done differently, but not against charter co-locations per se.

Allon: Charters are public schools, principals should work together as they do in Brandeis building, which has four high schools, including Frank McCourt HS which he helped start.

Liu: Would call for moratorium on all school closings and co-locations; co-locations cause too much friction and  are destructive to educational process.

DeBlasio (in response to Allon); McCourt HS good example of harmful co-location; successful HS model whose growth was limited by incursion of charter school (Upper West Success).

Allon True, they originally wanted 800 seats for McCourt, but DOE limited enrollment to 400, DOE still stuck on small school model that Gates started but has now discredited.  Administrative costs for all these small schools are sky high, paying for principal/AP for every schools.  

Quinn: Lots of examples of principals working together well in co-located schools; we need to invest in more leadership training of principals.

Question: class size reduction is the top priority of parents; is it a priority of yours;  and if so, how would you pay for it ?

Liu: Yes, it’s a priority; but there are space issues; teachers are not fully utilized; we can afford to do this without spending a lot more money.

Allon:  Impossible to enact this citywide; he would prioritize 1^st and 2^nd grade; and in language and science instruction.

Thompson: Most important in K-3^rd grades; in other grades, could provide more time on task through extended day or Saturday school.

De Blasio: Parents want this intensely; we should fund it by doing away with all the consultants; reiterates support for preK.

Quinn:  Focus on class size in preK-3^rd  and ELA classes.  We might find savings in the contracts budget, to redirect to classroom but in order to implement we need long term capital planning to make sure there’s space; engage with Census and Dept of Health in this process.

Question: When mayoral control up for vote in 2015, would you go to Albany to change system or keep as is?

De Blasio:  We need to keep mayoral control but a more democratic version, including giving CEC’s a meaningful role in co-locations and closings like Community Boards have now(CBs also only have advisory powers). The PEP should be place of real debate instead of Kangaroo court.

Quinn:  We need municipal control, DOE treated like real city agency, under control of City Council and Mayor.  That way the Council could legislate, will full budgetary knowledge and authority and parents can go to Councilmember for help.  [Currently, DOE is NOT a city agency like any other but primarily under control of state legislature instead.]

Allon: Mayoral control “red herring” not important; we need right teachers in classroom.

Liu:  I supported mayoral control because I thought it meant accountability,  but we didn’t get that.  We need to modify so there is more accountability [but how he didn’t say].

Thompson: Doesn’t matter so much as long as there is a good mayor, he would “tweak” it and bring district Superintendents back as before.

Summary:

All of the candidates had their high points:  Liu came out most strongly vs. co-locations and school closings; and expressed the most skepticism about theunreliable teacher evaluation system.  Chris Quinn’s notion of municipal control would be a substantial improvement to our governance system, providing real checks and balances, if the Legislature would agree to give more power to the City Council.  Allon seemed to understand how flawed and expensive the small school initiative has been, though his understanding of some other areas seemed weak (testing and John White).  De Blasio was most emphatic that the governance system needs to be changed to become more democratic, and that the PEP must change as well, but put forward few specifics as to how this should be accomplished.  Thompson was clear about the need to have a moratorium on school closings and giving back authority to the district Superintendents, but was weak on charters and how to reform mayoral control.

In the end, they all were somewhat disappointing in similar ways: they all inveighed against the clear overemphasis on testing and test prep, but offered no concrete proposals on how to mitigate this, especially as many of these policies are now coming from state and federal level.  They all said that the system had to change so that parents would be “listened” to more, but none had specific proposals to institutionalize the parent voice.  All said class size was important but most would limit their efforts to smaller classes in the early grades, and none seemed to understand how many economic benefits and cost savings would come from this reform.  None seemed to realize how necessary class size reduction will be towards improving our schools, including for our middle and high students if the words “equity” and “college and career ready” are ever to become more than buzzwords.

Hopefully, as time goes on, all the candidates will start to develop a deeper understanding and more clearly defined policy positions over the six months.  In any case, it will be up to us as parents, educators and advocates to make sure that they do.

John Liu on Budget Cuts, Wall Street Bonuses and Wasteful DOE Spending

NYC Kids PAC launches; check out our endorsements!

Whether you're concerned about governance and Mayoral control, or about school overcrowding, you know we need real change in our public schools.

Public school parents have started a new organization, called NYC Kids PAC, to support candidates who are working to make the sort of changes we need. More information about NYC Kids PAC is at Gotham Schools ; also see our (very new) website at www.nyckidspac.org, that has our mission statement and a list of founding members.

As we learned from from the school governance battle in Albany and the struggle in the City Council for a better capital plan, we need to elect representatives who take their responsibilities to our kids seriously. We call for real action to end overcrowding, ensure parent input, and give our children real opportunity and protect their civil rights. We will build parent power through the ballot box.

We have endorsed the following candidates in the primaries taking place on Tuesday, and hope you will support them for their work on behalf of better schools:

--- For City Comptroller, we endorse John Liu, who as Councilmember voted against the school capital plan and demanded enhanced accountability from the DOE as a member of the Council's Education Committee;

--- For Public Advocate, we endorse Norman Siegel, for his pro bono work representing the interests of public school parents in the cell phone and Randall's Island lawsuits.

--- For reelection to the City Council, we endorse the six members who voted against the inadequate school capital plan: in alphabetical order,Charles Barron, Alan Gerson, Robert Jackson, Ken Mitchell, Diane Reyna, and Al Vann;

--- For City Council, we endorse Mark Weprin, who as a state Assemblymember voted against the Silver/Padavan legislation that continued the current system of mayoral control, with no checks and balances;

If you would like to become a member of NYC Kids PAC, or send a contribution, send an email to nyckidspac@gmail.com

thanks,

Ann Kjellberg, President, NYC Kids PAC

Mayoral control: the need for more accountability, transparency and checks and balances

Check out Part I of our terrific Dec. 19 public forum with Council Member John Liu, Robert Tobias, former head of testing for the NYC public schools and now director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at NYU, Udi Ofer, Director of Advocacy at the NYCLU and George Sweeting, Deputy Director of the Independent Budget Office.

The speakers were clear about how the administration is exploiting ambiguities and loopholes in the law to evade any actual oversight or checks and balances, either when it comes to the civil rights of NYC students or the accurate reporting of data such as test scores or spending policies, and how this has led to a "crisis of confidence" in our schools.

Part II is posted here, and Part III is here.

Mayoral Control: The Need for Accountability, Transparency and Checks and Balances

A Forum hosted by the PARENT COMMISSION on School Governance

Friday, December 19^th at 6:30 p.m.

Judson Church Assembly Hall

239 Thompson Street in Greenwich Village

(Directions: Take A, B, C, D, E, F, or V trains to West 4th Street, #6 train to Astor Place, or #1 to Sheridan Square)

Confirmed speakers include:

Council Member JOHN LIU, NYC Council Education Committee

UDI OFER, Advocacy Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union

Prof. ROBERT TOBIAS, Director, Center for Research on Teaching and Learning at NYU and former head of assessment for the Bd. of Education

GEORGE SWEETING, Deputy Director of the Independent Budget Office

For more information contact: 917-435-9329 or parentcommission@gmail.com

Fierce budget battle at City Hall

The headlines tell the story. Chancellor Talks of Cuts for Schools, Amid Hissing; City Council spanks Chancellor Klein over school aid cuts; School Budget Cuts Controversy Boils Over; Hundreds Of Parents Ejected From City Council Hearing.

Yesterday, it was standing room only at City Hall, as Chancellor Klein and Dept. Grimm testified for nearly four hours before the City Council on the budget cuts for schools proposed for next year.

Klein was uncharacteristically subdued, as he was gently but firmly admonished by Speaker Quinn, angrily confronted by Education committee chair Robert Jackson and strongly challenged by nearly every other member of the Education and Finance Committees.

Quinn began by saying that the Council “cannot in good faith support” the amount of cuts to the classroom proposed by the administration. “We are going to work hard to find other places to cut to get monies back to the classroom” she said; “we have no more important job.” She asked Klein, “Aren’t there choices to be made that would have less impact on schools?” and suggested reductions in the private contracts budget, which is slated to rise another $250 million next year. Several members said testing might be another place to look. At one point, Kathleen Grimm admitted that the city's “diagnostic assessments” were costing $24.1 million a year.

Robert Jackson said the actual hit to schools was “more than $180 million” rather than the $99 million as first suggested in news accounts, and that the schools actually need $200 million just to keep services level, given increased costs. And why, he asked, did the city need to go back on its promise made last year to fully fund the CFE decision, given a city budget surplus of $4-5 billion– while the State fulfilled its promise, despite a large deficit?

Several members echoed these concerns, pointing out how difficult it would be to go back to Albany next year, and demand another funding increase when the city had reneged on its side of the bargain. John Liu also mentioned the possibility of tinkering with the property tax rebate of $400, which will cost the city another $250 million. (Not to mention the planned reductions in the property tax rate, which will cost another $1 billion in revenues.)

Many were critical of the way in which the Chancellor appeared to be manipulating the situation, pitting parents against each other by threatening to cut high performing, mostly white schools by a large percentage if Albany didn’t give him more “flexibility” with the Contract for Excellence funding meant to go primarily to low-performing schools.

Jackson said Klein was “holding a gun up to Albany’s head” and called it a "divide and conquer" strategy: "Some people would say rich versus poor...those that are white majority versus minority."

The Chancellor’s presentation (in pdf) showed increased funding for schools from the city in past years; a point he returned to several times in trying to justify the cuts for next year. (This excuse is a little like a student saying, “I did my homework last year; why should I have to do it this year?”) Needless to say, the Council wasn’t buying his line.

Speaker Quinn asked Klein directly what extra funding would be needed to avoid any cuts to schools – the $99 million he says he is taking directly from school budgets, or the $190 million that the Council analysis shows is actually being imposed in “back door” cuts, as new expenses are going to be shifted to the school level, such as computer repairs and the food consumed by students whose parents don’t fill out free lunch forms.

The Chancellor replied he would need an extra $400 million to avoid any cuts to schools– a figure that made no sense to any one. In fact, Council Member Oliver Koppel said at one point, "To tell you the truth, I don't believe you…You should hire a new accountant.”

There were a lot of other discrepancies in the accounting. Instead of the $200 million in cuts Klein claimed to be taking “centrally and in other non-school budgets”, the analysis by the City Council staff posted here shows that only about $12 million is to be cut directly from Tweed, primarily through a hiring freeze. (Meanwhile, see this blog posting from Eduwonkette which shows a steady increase in the headcount at Tweed over the last four years.)

Klein also admitted that his personal staff of 8 was costing $968,000 – averaging $121,000 each, rather than the $1,117 total claimed in the budget submitted to the Council, and that the accountability office now has a head count of 97, rather than only 18 staffers, as was in the same document.

The Chancellor added that there would be a substantial increase next year -- $154 million – in the so-called “indispensable initiatives” of the administration, most of which were unspecified, but include even more new small schools, the Leadership Academy, etc. (By the way, this does not include the increased payments to charter schools – which have totaled nearly $100 million more in funding over the last two years.)

It was a difficult day for the Klein, who usually likes to wrap himself in the mantle of Martin Luther King and Brown Vs. Board of Education, as he tried to explain why he wants to change the rules so that the portion of state aid allocated through the Contracts for Excellence should be allotted to high-performing schools in the exact same ratio as struggling schools. He seemed to claim that with his highly-flawed “Fair student funding” formula he’s done everything necessary to help these schools -- and to narrow the achievement gap.

Clearly this is an administration that has run out of new ideas – and run out of excuses.

There were hisses and boos from the audience throughout, and at one point, a large contingent of parents in the balcony started chanting “Chancellor Klein, don’t cut a dime” and was ejected by the guards.

See NY Times, Daily News, CBS news, NY1 and video clips from ABC news.

Voices in opposition to the school grading system grow louder

Diane Ravitch has an oped in today's NY Sun about the new school grades:

Is the grading system accurate and reliable? Did the grading system identify the worst schools? Is the closure of the lowest-performing schools likely to improve public education? Could the Department have taken other actions that might have been more effective than closing schools?

The answers to all of these questions, she suggests, is no. Diane also provides an important critique of the whole notion that simply closing schools is the best way to make significant progress:

Nor is it enough to turn out the lights. Schools are not a franchise operation. They are deeply embedded community institutions. They should be improved with additional resources, smaller classes, and additional training for educators. The starting point in reforming schools is to have a valid evaluation system that correctly identifies the schools that need extra help. It may not be easy to transform the schools that are in trouble, but if we want a good public education system, there really is no alternative.

Indeed, this is an essential element of the school reform process for which Tweed no longer feels accountable -- their responsibility to provide the support and resources schools need to improve.

See the show on PBS about the NYC school grading controversy, including parents and principals at some of the schools that got low marks, and one that got high marks, talking about the meaning and impact of these grades. The show also includes an interview with the Chancellor, in which he attempts to explains the "F" that PS 35, the Staten Island neighborhood school received, despite having 98% of students at grade level in math, by comparing it unfavorably to Anderson School – a highly selective gifted and talented school.

The interviewer, Rafael Pi Roman points out that William Sanders, the father of value-added accountability systems, told him that the sort of one year’s test score gains that the NYC grades are based upon are not meaningful. Klein responds that nevertheless, the school grade is a positive motivational factor in getting schools to work harder on improving test scores.

You can also listen to audio clips from the City Council hearings on the school grades from December 10, now posted on You Tube:

Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum , who says out that closing schools unilaterally, as the Chancellor has done, without first consulting Community Education Councils is potentially illegal.

City Council Education Chair Robert Jackson (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3), who aggressively questions James Liebman on many issues, including whether the DOE reached out to parents sufficiently.

Council Member Lew Fidler of Brooklyn, who flunks the school grades for their lack of transparency. (Part 1 and Part 2.)

And Council Member John Liu , who is masterful in showing that these grades are derived primarily from the results of only two tests -- though Liebman keeps trying to argue that these are really "multiple assessments" given out over "multiple days." (Part 1 and Part 2.)

Finally, watch the Channel 2 news segment featuring the hearings and showing Liebman fleeing from parents, now also posted on YouTube.

UPDATE: see also this article in City Limits: PARENTS, COUNCIL STILL ANGRY ABOUT SCHOOL GRADES

James Liebman on the run

On Monday, at the City Council hearings on the school grades, James Liebman, the chief accountability czar and former law professor, faced fierce criticism from Council Members. No wonder; his testimony was evasive, full of misleading statements and outright errors.

Liebman went on to make many questionable statements, among them, that a school at which "hundreds of children on average lost 10 percent of a proficient level in a year almost certainly has a significant problem."

Instead, experts say that one year's gain or losses in test scores at the school level is 34-80% random, and unrelated to the amount of learning taking place.

Liebman also claimed that factors related to overcrowding and class size were taken into account when devising the grades, when they clearly weren't.

In his testimony and power point, he claimed that he had consulted with many groups and experts, including the United Federation of Teachers, the Council of Supervisors and Administrators (the Principal's Union), CPAC, Community Education Councils and the NY Performance Standards Consortium in devising these grades.

Ann Cook, the co-chair of the Consortium, later testified to the fact that this was untrue. Her group had asked for and gotten a meeting about the interim assessments, but the topic of the school grades never even came up.

Ernest Logan, President of the CSA also denied that he had ever been consulted, and laughed when Jackson asked him this question. (See this letter from Logan to the Chancellor, about the many flaws in the school grades.) The UFT VP, Aminda Gentile, said they had “conversations” with DOE about the school grades, but there was no consultation.

Betsy Gotbaum, the Public Advocate, also criticized the unreliability of the school grades, and said that the Chancellor's decision to close schools without consulting first with Community Education Councils is against the law. She cited the state law, (2590-h) , which says that the Chancellor has the authority to:

Establish, control and operate new schools or programs…or…discontinue any such schools and programs as he or she may determine; provided however, that the chancellor shall consult with the affected Community District Education Council before substantially expanding or reducing such an existing school or program within a community district. (The law is posted here.)

Yet, she added, this has not happened in this case. "And the truth is, I can't think of an example where it has happened."

When asked by the chair of the Education committee, Robert Jackson, Liebman admitted that CECs had not been consulted before the announcement to close schools. Instead, they had been consulted afterwards, "entirely consistent with the process that has applied for the last several years."

Did he believe that parents should be consulted? Liebman said that the process that was used "was sufficient and adequate and very comprehensive."

Jackson said this response was "totally unacceptable", and if this was the direction the chancellor is going, he is in "big trouble." Liebman also claimed that the method he used was very "transparent" with very "clear rules" and that the results of the Quinnipiac polls showed that parents understood the methods used. (!!)

Liebman kept returning to the results of this poll in his defense, though it turns out that only 143 public school parents were polled.

City Council Member Lou Fidler was concerned that stigmatizing schools with failing grades will likely accelerate the decline of these schools, rather than helping them improve. Melinda Katz said it best: In her 14 years as an elected official, she’s never seen an agency so sure they’re right, when all the parents she has spoken to believe they’re wrong.

John Liu was very effective, asking Liebman repeatedly if the 85% of each school's grade was not just based upon a single measure, the results of a test taken once a year. Liebman kept on evading the issue, saying these grades were not based on one measure but actually "many measures" from a "series of assessments" that take place over a "series of daysm" and that each assessment "cuts across many hundreds of different items, and many skill areas." Liu pointed out the fact that its still only one test!

Finally, Liebman blurted out, "Life is one test" and everyone booed. Liu concluded that not only was Liebman trying to obfuscate, but that that his entire testimony was an obfuscation.

At the end of Liebman's three-hour testimony, the Chair, Robert Jackson, politely requested that he step outside the hearing room to receive petitions from Time Out from Testing and Class Size Matters, signed by nearly 7,000 parents, calling for a halt to the school grades. (Thanks so much to those of you who signed.)

In preparation, we filed out in an orderly fashion, (see above photo from the NY Times) but rather than have to confront us directly, Liebman slipped out a side door, out the back exit of City Hall, and ran away from us like a thief in the night, as we tried to catch up. He then entered the private gates to Tweed, but refused to let us in.

Liebman’s flight from parents was captured on video on many of the nightly news shows. As Lisa Donlan was quoted as saying in the Daily News, all this is symbolic of DOE’s arrogant and dismissive attitude. "He wouldn't even stay to hear our questions ... after we sat for three hours and listened to his testimony."

Here is an excerpt from today’s Times story, “Defending School Report Cards, Over a Chorus of Boos”:

“Mr. Liebman, whose title is chief accountability officer of the Education Department, ducked out a side door, leaving parents to chase him out the back of City Hall to behind the Education Department’s headquarters at Tweed Courthouse.

There, several education officials ran in circles for several minutes to avoid Jane Hirschmann, the director of Time Out From Testing, an advocacy group, as well as parents and reporters.”

Later in a phone interview, Liebman claimed to Times reporter that “he had not deliberately avoided the parents.” This claim is about as trustworthy as the school grades themselves.

See also article in Daily News, Escape from NY parents, the CBS newsclip here and NY1 here.

The CBS story repeats the erroneous statement that Liebman has met with Time out from Testing “many times”; in fact, according to Jane Hirschmann, head of the group, he has refused to ever meet with them.

I also gave testimony posted here about how unfair, inaccurate and destructive these school grades are, and entered into the record the comments criticizing the school grades from many of you, including parents, teachers, and at least one retired principal, that were posted online at our petition.

Update: Erin Einhorn of the NY Daily News pointed out today in Only in NY schools can get an 'A' & 'F' that of the 26 SURR schools on the state failing list, nine got As or Bs.

"The city can do whatever they want to do, but at the end of the day, I think the public deserves better," said Merryl Tisch, the vice chancellor of the state Board of Regents and a longtime supporter of Mayor Bloomberg.