The NYC Mayoral debate and what the candidates said on class size

The second and final NYC Mayoral debate happened on Thursday night.  Education and more specifically class size was one of the main topics covered.  Katie Honan of the online publication The City asked each of the candidates their views on the law passed by the Legislature in 2022, requiring NYC lower class size in all grades. 

The full video of the debate is here; and the section concerning education is posted above.  I have also posted a transcript of the education section. I encourage people to watch the whole thing.

Thankfully, the only candidate on the panel to openly oppose reducing class size was Whitney Tilson, a retired hedge fund investor and charter school board member, though some candidates seemed more enthusiastic than others.  Tilson repeated a well-worn myth often put forward by those who oppose lowering class size: that the need to hire new teachers will offset any benefit that would otherwise accrue from smaller classes.   

Yet nearly every controlled study shows significant gains in student outcomes after class sizes are reduced.  One study showed that even after  Los Angeles tripled its hiring of elementary teachers following the state’s class-size reduction initiative, “the district was able to do so without experiencing a reduction in mean teacher effectiveness.” 

Moreover, even if new teachers may be less adept than veteran teachers, the research also suggests that smaller classes are likely lead to lower teacher attrition rates, which in NYC are  24% over four years.  Teacher turnover is especially problematic in our highest-need schools. This means that as class sizes are reduced in NYC, the result will likely be a far  more experienced and skilled teaching force over time.  [Interestingly, even as he supports raising the cap on charter schools, it doesn’t appear to bother Tilson that the annual attrition rate of Kipp charter schools in New York, on whose board he sits, is 23% - meaning they have to hire about one fourth of their teachers every year.)

Another issue that came up during the Mayoral debate was whether the state should provide more funding to NYC to lower class size, which both Cuomo and Lander argued would be necessary.   

My view, which I explained in detail in  testimony on Foundation Aid, is that the state should only send more funding to the city for class size reduction if and when NYC puts forward a detailed,  multi-year class size plan showing how those funds would be effectively used for this purpose.  The Department of Education has yet to propose any such plan, even though it is required by law. 

The plan should include how they will provide sufficient space for smaller classes in the nearly 500  schools that are too overcrowded at their current enrollment to lower class size to required levels. Our analysis shows that these schools currently enroll nearly half of all students.  Even then, there needs to be rigorous oversight by the state to ensure that the funds are spent appropriately towards the intended result.

Twice in the last 25 years, the state has sent millions in additional aid to the city specifically for smaller classes, and both times the city improperly used those funds to supplant their own spending on teachers. 

The first time this occurred was in 2000-2006, when the state provided more than $88 million annually as part of the Early Grade Class Size Reduction Program.  Yet two State Comptroller audits, in 2002 and 2005,  found that the extra dollars did not lead to as many new classes as they should have, because the DOE instead simply cut their own spending for teachers.

In 2007-2008, the state created the Contracts for Excellence program, and with it, provided nearly a billion additional dollars to NYC, along with a requirement that a portion be used to lower class size in all grades. Instead, class sizes increased sharply.  Another audit, this time  from the NYC Comptroller’s office, showed that these funds were again “improperly used to pay for teacher positions that would have existed without the ….program.”

In short, DOE has a terrible record when it comes to class size.  Whoever the next mayor may be, he or she cannot be trusted to do the right thing without first showing us a detailed plan for how the money would be spent.  Even then, DOE must be watched like a hawk to ensure the funds are invested to provide all NYC students with smaller classes, which is their right under the state constitution, according to New York's highest court.

The issue of class size entered the Mayoral debate

The issue of class size made the Mayoral debate on Sept. 6.  Check out 30 minutes into the video of the debate between Bill de Blasio and Sal Albanese:

Question: Mr. Albanese, the city’s Kids PAC, yesterday gave the current administration grade of “F” for class side and overcrowding, say more than half a million children are affected. What would you do to relieve this today right now?

Sal Albanese: Great question, the tragic number is 63%, 63% of kids graduated from high school cannot do college work. The politically massaged numbers where Bill has shown some increase in math and reading scores, of course leaving out the fact that the poor performing schools are doing worse under his watch.

As a former public school teacher, what I would do is direct resources to reduce class size. that, teachers will tell you that is the best way to get optimum educational outcomes and reduce focus on standardized testing, we are teaching to the test, the kids are coming into the buildings and not passionate about education, they are test takers, I want to move away from that.

I want to produce kids that are innovators, independent thinkers, none of that is happening right now. and those parents yesterday were great because they gave bill the grade he deserved when it comes to public education, an “F.”  He spent millions on renewal schools with terrible results.

Question: Mr. Mayor? almost half of the schools, kids are overcrowded. how do you fix that?

  Bill de Blasio: I will answer after answering this point, the facts are wrong, once again. Listen, that answer you heard a moment ago denigrates the efforts of our educators, we have the highest graduation rate in the history of New York City, test scores have gone up four years in a row, educators are doing extra ordinary things to reach children.

We know we have a lot more work to do, pre-K will be a huge part, 3-K is behind it, a focus on getting all kids on reading level by third grade, something that has never been done before in the history of the city is where we are put investments. To not recognize that steady progress really is disrespectful to our educators and our parents who are working so hard to support their kids.

To the class size issue, we have added a huge amount of additional money, billions of dollars to increase the amount of construction of new school buildings and to expand buildings that we have already with annexes and other facilities, pre-K centers, so we can additionally reach kids in neighborhoods that are overcrowded.

This is another one that will be a long battle because, in fact, in some neighborhoods, the number of school kids ballooned in recent years, we have a lot more to do to catch up. we are steadily investing in addressing overcrowding and making our schools better for our kids….

At about 37 minutes in, Albanese added that he would legalize marijuana and tax it to pay for smaller classes:  

 Albanese: I have a very firm opinion that we need to legalize marijuana, as other states are doing it. …there would be places where you can buy marijuana for recreational use, and use the tax money to improve our schools, to make our city, reduce class size.

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.

Highlights of Mayoral candidate education debate sponsored by principals union

credit: Epoch Times

Last night there was a lively education debate sponsored by the CSA, the principals union, with all the Democratic mayoral candidates and Tom Allon, who is running as a Republican.  I was busily tweeting throughout.  

Except for a rather tiresome exchange as to who had the best public school  alma mater, it was an interesting discussion, well moderated by Liz Willen of Hechinger and Pedro Noguera of NYU.  ( In case you’re interested, Liu went to Bronx Science; Allon attended Stuyvesant;  Bill Thompson graduated from Midwood HS;  and Bill De Blasio’s son attends Brooklyn Tech. Chris Quinn said she wasn’t “smart enough” to go to Bronx Sci or Stuy but actually she grew up on Long Island.)

Each of the candidates had his or her high points:

·         Bill de Blasio got the biggest applause of the evening; when he said that come January, Eva Moskowitz of Success Academy Charters will no longer “have the run of the place”; i.e. be running the school system in the city;

·         Chris Quinn pointed out that there's no evidence that merit pay for teachers works;

·         Tom Allon said we need an expanded capital plan and innovative ways to finance school construction to reduce overcrowding;

·         John Liu pointed there was no evidence that the schools had improved under Bloomberg by our test scores on the national exams called the NAEPs;

·         Bill Thompson said that the past ten years of damaging policies were the result of non-educators running the system, and that we need to focus on improving schools rather than closing them, as happned in the Chancellor’s district when he headed the Board of Education.

They all liked community schools and wrap-around services, as promoted by the UFT (though I'd like them to confront the reality that there is little or no room in most of our schools, which are already hugely overcrowded); they all said there was too much testing; they all promised to consult parents and teachers more; and most of them supported a moratorium on school closures and co-locations, all that is, except for Quinn and Allon, who said the implementation of these policies could be improved. 

There was a general consensus that the obsession with small schools by this administration was misguided,; and most agreed that the networks aren’t working and we need our geographically based districts back.  The only one who differed on that point was Quinn, who maintained that some principals liked their networks, and they should be able to keep them if they wanted to; though there didn’t seem to be many principals in the audience who agreed about this.  It turned out (as I suspected) that she was talking about the New Visions network, which has been fierce in protecting its revenue and turf.  Tom Allon and De Blasio also got into an argument about whether De Blasio’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for Universal preK would cause rich people to move out of the city (there’s no evidence for that, by the way.)

 At one point, Liz Willen asked the question of a student at Wagner MS named Sophia: what would they do about the chronic problem of excessive class sizes?  De Blasio said we would have to wait for the CFE money to come in.  Liu said the city had enough money to solve this, if we made it a priority. The others didn’t think there was much hope and seemed stuck in the status quo; extremely disappointing considering smaller classes are the number one priority of parents and a constitutional requirement, according to the State’s highest court.

Anyway, if you want more detail you can check out my tweeting at @leoniehaimson at twitter.com or see the articles at Epoch Times and  GothamSchools.

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.