City Council Opposition to the Bloomberg Schools Reorganization

The Jackson-Liu resolution outlines the City Council's objections to Mayor Bloomberg's latest restructuring. The resolution, drafted by Education Committee Chair Robert Jackson and Queens Councilman John Liu, has been joined by a broad swath of the council.

We also have links to well-researched and thoughtful letters of concern from two councilmembers, Dan Garodnick and Gale Brewer of Manhattan. Click here and here to read them. Both letters make the obvious point that the unnecessary rush to implement these changes and the lack of input from stakeholders makes little sense.

More Information on the New School Support Organizations

On Monday, Chancellor Klein revealed more details of the options for school support organizations (SSOs) available to schools under the latest reorganization. See the DoE press release here.

In this chart just now provided to us by DoE staffers, each SSO option is defined along with pricing to be charged each school for the services provided.

There are three types of SSO:

1) Empowerment Support Organization (ESO): schools choosing this option will join other schools in a network and choose how to receive support
2) Learning Support Organization (LSO): four organizations to be led by former regional superintendents
3) Partnership Support Organization (PSO): non-profit groups under contract to provide services

We also have a list of entities that applied to become a PSO. Those that were accepted are noted. Princeton Review, St. John's University and a unit of New York University were not accepted, nor were any for-profit entities who applied. We note that the NYU entity is headed by Pedro Noguera, one of the more outspoken critics of the Bloomberg education policy in the academic community.

Principals will learn more at an April 23rd briefing and have until May 15th to decide which SSO to choose. Parents will be invited to "borough fairs" to learn more. The press release does not specify dates for these events.

UPDATE: Principals' Guide to School Support Organizations has been released by the DoE. Click here.

How one organization felt, after being asked to sign onto the letter of support

Below is an email from an intermediary organization that receives funding from DOE, sent to principals and teaching mentors, after being asked to sign onto the letter of support that Mayor Bloomberg released on Monday.

The letter was signed by 100 individuals, representing groups ranging from small afterschool programs to the Museum of Modern Art – most of which are financially dependent on the good graces of the city. The DOE email which follows calls the signers "the Department's partners and friends."

It is interesting that this particular organization, whose name is removed, asked for input from principals as to whether they believed that their schools and/or network might be punished if they did not sign on – and specifically requested feedback by phone or from a non-DOE email account, as though worried that Tweed might actually monitor their communications.

It would be interesting to know if officials at Tweed spy on people’s emails.

Take note that the actual pros and cons of the proposals were never mentioned – no less whether these changes might really be in the interests of “the people who matter most: Our children” as the DOE letter claims.

Here is more evidence of the way in which the bullying tactics of the administration are viewed by educators on the ground. So much for the supposedly independent groundswell of support.

Also, interestingly, a reference is made to the fact that an earlier version of this letter criticized the elected officials and the UFT who opposed these radical proposals – which was apparently removed after negative reaction.

Dear principals and mentors,

We received this letter on Tuesday asking for [our group] to sign on. So far, we were told by one intermediary (who is NOT signing) that there was an earlier version which explicitly criticized politicians and the teachers union and that after pushback, it was revised to this version.

We are asking for your input….(phone or non-doe email is best)…

What cost and/or benefit to your school (and our network of schools) do you foresee if we do or do NOT sign this letter?

We are also reaching out to other intermediaries to gauge their response.

Thanks.

[name removed]

---

From: Marcus Debbie [mailto:DMarcus6@schools.nyc.gov]

Hi xxxxxx-

Below is a public letter than many of the Department's partners and friends are signing. We have a long list of signatories already. Would you consider signing on to this public letter of support on behalf of xxxxxx [your group]? It would be great to have you.

Thanks,Debbie

Debbie Marcus
Associate Director of External Relations
Office of New Schools
http://schools.nyc.gov/newschools
(212) 374-6929
dmarcus6@schools.nyc.gov

Dear New Yorkers,

Until Mayor Bloomberg took charge of the city's schools, student performance had been all but stagnant for decades. Now, because of the first phase of the Children First school reforms the Mayor and the Chancellor have enacted, New York City's students are making real progress. Thousands more students are graduating and the New York City graduation rate is higher than it's been in more than 20 years.

Students' progress in reading and math is now outpacing gains in the rest of New York State.
But our schools are still not serving all New York City children as they must.

For the sake of our children, we need to act. And we need to act now. If we don't take the smart next steps the Bloomberg administration has outlined, we risk failing the children of New York City. That's a price that we are not willing to pay.

The reforms make sense. Schools need the authority and the resources to build the right educational program for every child, and to ensure that they're getting the job done, they must be held accountable for their students' academic success in all subject areas from math and reading to the arts and science. Schools also must be funded fairly.

Our students and their families, indeed all New Yorkers, deserve the kind of schools and the kind of school system that our Mayor and our Chancellor are creating. We can't put special interests ahead of the interests of children. This Mayor has it right-we need to put our students' interests first. We urge all New Yorkers to join together to support these reform efforts. These reforms have real promise and will make schools better for the people who matter most: Our children.

Sincerely,

New Visions Caves

NYC Public School Parents orginally told the story of how New Visions, an organization seeking to become one of the DoE's Partnership Support Organizations (PSO), was using its control of Gates Foundation grants to force schools to select it as a PSO. Today, Erin Einhorn of the Daily News reports they have backed down on this controversial practice:

Late yesterday, New Visions director Robert Hughes issued a statement saying all schools that qualify for grants will be entitled to them regardless of whether they hire New Visions. He declined to elaborate on why he had changed his mind.

While this decision is a positive development, the episode shines a harsh spotlight on the rushed preparations to eliminate the DoE regional support structures.

"Visions of Cash"

Today, intrepid reporter Erin Einhorn of the Daily News followed the trail of the story that we first broke on our blog last Wednesday, "A Free Choice for Principals?" In the article entitled "Visions of Cash", she describes how the organization New Visions is distributing Gates Foundation grants to new schools but has "decided to attach strings to the cash: It wants a payoff of sorts."

Officials at New Visions have told principals at the start-up schools that they will not get any funding unless they also sign New Visions up as their PSO, or Partnership Support Organization, for the next five years, which means paying them substantial funds out of their limited school budgets.

A principal was quoted that she feels "blackmailed":

"I thought, 'Oh, my God, what a huge conflict of interest,'" the principal said. "We have to join their PSO and pay them for support in order to get this grant that we qualified for?"

The Gates foundation refused to comment; a DOE spokesperson said that "it's too early to comment on what rules PSOs will be required to follow or whether New Visions had broken them."

Just like the Children's First game, or the new Survivor version, this reflects the administration's way of making up the rules up as they go along, to make sure that no one will know what they are until it's too late! Luckily, in this case, the DOE may not be the final arbiter -- there are laws about this sort of thing.

In related news, the LISs (or Learning instructional supervisors, whose positions were established just a few years ago and are now being eliminated) are running scared. They have been reportedly warned by DOE officials in charge of the internal Learning Support Organizations that they will get jobs only if they persuade enough principals that they still supervise to sign up -- and promise to pay cold hard cash -- to the LSO.

A message from an insider at Tweed:

"LISs and others seeking to stay employed have allegedly been told that their invitation to join an LSO will be dependent upon how many schools they bring in with them. Principals are reaching out to colleagues and friends across district and borough lines to put together networks. Parents seem to be out of the loop. The Chancellor made it clear that the choice of support organization is the PRINCIPALS alone."

Is this the sort of school system we want for our kids?

A free choice for principals?

Under the proposed reorganization, the Department of Education is asking principals to choose a support organization – either an external Partnership Support Organization, (PSO), an internal DoE-led Learning Support Organization (LSO), or if their school becomes an empowerment school, they can draw on that network for support.

This initiative is being described as freeing up principals to choose the best services and deals possible from a range of possible sources – which of course, will have to be paid for out of their limited school budgets.

Here is an excerpt from a letter to principals by Joel Klein explaining the rationale:

As you know, an important priority of our Children First school reforms is making sure that all of our principals and school communities are held accountable for meeting rigorous goals for our students and are empowered to make the critical decisions about how best to succeed. You and your school community, not someone who works outside of your school, should determine what you need to be successful and you should have the resources and authority to make it happen. …. When you choose a School Support Organization, you and your school community have the chance to select the team that is best suited to help you, your staff, and your students succeed.

Not until mid-April are principals supposed to receive ”detailed information” about the services being offered by each organization, and in April and May, there are supposed to be a “series of citywide and borough forums to “meet representatives of the School Support Organizations, learn more about the packages of services each is offering, and make informed decisions.”

In the letter, Klein adds that is “too early for you to come to a conclusion about the most appropriate support organization for your school. The School Support Organizations are still in development and will be described to you in detail in the coming months. Any 'decision' to affiliate before these options are fully developed and made known to you would be premature and would very likely short-change your school and your students.”

In fact, the DOE has not yet officially chosen among the organizations that have applied to become PSOs, though New Visions confidently announces on its website that it will be one of them.

Yet in many cases, this choice appears to be more illusory than real.

A recent email from a top staffer at New Visions says they will delay giving out grants to the small schools with the Gates Foundation funds, until and unless these schools choose them as their PSO.

Here is an excerpt: “Remember, by signing this grant agreement you also agree to become a member of the New Visions Partner Support Organization. This is a clear stipulation for receiving funding support.”

And, in case that wasn’t clear enough:. “Only after each of you signs on to our NV PSO will we be able to issue a grant implementation letter.”

Is this an inventive kickback scheme on the part of New Visions, to ensure that funds keep flowing to their organization, in this case in the form of taxpayer dollars? Clearly this will restrict the ability of principals at the small schools to freely choose which PSO might be best for their needs, given the fact that they rely on Gates-funded grants to keep these schools going.

Comments anyone? Do you think the practice of forcing schools to choose New Visions as their Partnership support organization is unethical, illegal, or just business as usual, in the ruthless world that Tweed is intent on establishing in our public school system?