Diane Ravitch emerges victorious against the billionaire bully

Though at first it seemed shocking that the administration would try to stamp out dissent by taping Diane Ravitch at speaking events, developing the sort of research file on her that candidates create on their opponents, and then having Kathy Wylde of the NYC Partnership try to smear her in an oped in the NY Post. In retrospect perhaps it’s not surprising at all.

Bloomberg and Klein run their respective fiefdoms as though they're involved in a non-stop political campaign. Many of the top officials in the Mayor's cabinet are PR people rather than policy experts – including most of his deputy Mayors. And as we know, Klein has the most extensive -- and expensive --PR staff in city government, short of the Mayor.

And while both of them may pretend that they believe in competition, clearly they only allow this notion to prevail when it means leaving schools, and students, to succeed or fail on their own, without throwing them a lifeline. When it comes to their own turf, they refuse to allow the sort of free exchange and expression that real democracy depends upon.

As Leo Casey writes in Edwize: “It seems that for some, markets should rule all education — except for the free marketplace of ideas. There, their monopoly must go unquestioned and uncriticized.”

Remember how Bloomberg won office in the first place– not on his qualifications or political experience, which were nil, but because he was able to use his own personal fortune to ruthlessly dominate the airwaves? In 2001, he spent a record $71 million; even though early in the campaign, he himself said that spending more than $30 million would "look obscene." He went on to spend more than twice that amount.

Four years later, even though he was the heavy favorite in the race, he broke his own record --- spending $78 million, more than any other nonpresidential campaign –nearly ten times as much as his opponent, Freddy Ferrer. During the 10 days before the election, he spent $12 million, mostly for television, radio and newspaper advertising.

Remember how he fired three of his appointees on the Panel on Educational Policy, the day of the vote about third grade retention? The man uses brute force when he cannot persuade. Never does he stop to think that perhaps he might be wrong. The absolute power that he wields when it comes to our schools is not enough -- he also feels that he should own public opinion as well.

Now, whether its our taxpayer money going to develop dossiers against dissenters, or persuading charities that were originally set up to help the public schools (the Fund for Public Schools) to spend millions more to burnish his image by spreading disinformation, precious resources that should have been devoted towards improving education for our kids is being diverted – and perverted – into his narrow political ends.

Only in this case, the good guy won, and rather than besmirching Diane’s reputation, the administration has sullied their own . No one seems to have told these bullies that you don’t treat a national treasure like Diane as you would a political foe.

Commentators of every political stripe have come out in her defense. Not that she needed them. First, you must read Diane’s eloquent response in the NY Post.

Also, the Daily Kos, Steve Koss in our own blog; Sol Stern of the Manhattan Institute, the National Review, Eduwonkette, Education Notes, and Gotham Gazette : all of which decry Tweed's underhanded tactics to suppress dissent.

The only person not in his payroll of the Mayor who seems to support the administration is Whitney Tilson, former hedge fund manager and charter school proponent.

Last but not least, check out one of my favorites -- The Neighborhood Retail Alliance:

The real issue here, and its one that we've commented on before, is the way in which the DOE acts more like the DOD in its ruthless approach to dissent. …It is, as Ravitch, Sol Stern and Andrew Wolf have all pointed out, the way that an agency behaves when it has a good deal to hide. It is an agency that will go to great lengths to do bureaucratic sleight-of-hands, and when that doesn't work on seasoned educational experts, the agency will bring out corporate toadies to do ghost-written character assassination.

Thanks to David Bellel for the illustration. Yes, that’s Kathy Wylde down for the count.

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.

DOE WINS CASE, WIDENS BAN

May 8, 2007 (GBN News): Emboldened by yesterday’s court ruling upholding the NY City Department of Education ban on cell phones, the DOE today expanded the ban to include virtually all electronic and mechanical devices. A DOE spokesperson told GBN News that while the ban covers devices of any kind, the main target of the new ban is wrist watches, which the DOE considers “disruptive” and “a safety issue”.

According to a statement issued by the DOE, students will be banned, effective immediately, from using, possessing or looking at watches while on school property. The statement details the rationale for this ban, and points out that the judge’s ruling in the cell phone case clearly sets a precedent for permitting this new regulation. The reasons put forth in the DOE statement are:

-Watches are “disruptive to the learning environment”. Students are distracted in class by looking at their watches and hearing watch alarms going off.
-Watches can be used to enable gang activity and other crimes. “Long before there were cell phones”, the statement says, “gangs and other criminals ‘synchronized watches’ to coordinate their criminal activity.”
-Watches may soon feature new and dangerous technologies such as voice and text communication capabilities. The statement noted that the judge’s ruling mentioned evolving technology as one justification for the ban. Moreover, it went on to point out that “Even an old Dick Tracy wrist watch can be used for cheating and other such nefarious purposes”.
-Novelty watches such as the ones displaying phases of the moon could also present a discipline problem by “reminding the wearer when the moon is full, thus encouraging bizarre and uncontrolled behavior.”

The DOE statement also reiterated that there are no exceptions to the ban on all electronic and mechanical devices, save for students’ documented medical needs. Hearing aids, for example, which the DOE says often disrupt classes by emitting annoying, high pitched sounds, will require a doctor’s certification. The certification must be renewed weekly since “sometimes people’s hearing improves.”

In response to immediate criticism by parent groups who said students' inability to carry watches for the trip to and from school could lead to excessive lateness to school and after school jobs, Schools Chancellor Joel Klein defended the ban. The Chancellor noted that, as the judge put it, there is a “rational basis” for the ban given the schools’ disciplinary and safety interests. As for the possibility of an appeal or an additional lawsuit, the Chancellor said simply, “Bring it on!”

YOU'RE FIRED!

April 23, 2007 (GBN News): A controversial new rule allowing principals to expel parents from PTA’s and PA’s may have a more benign intent than critics had feared. GBN News has learned that this rule was instituted in order to enable production of a spinoff to Donald Trump’s successful reality series, “The Apprentice”. According to sources, Mr. Trump has engaged Schools Chancellor Joel Klein to host next year’s version of the show, which will reportedly star the Chancellor as himself. Contestants on the show will be co-opted PTA and PA members throughout the city, who will compete to be hired for a paying job.

Each episode will feature a new and challenging set of tasks, which will test the contestants’ creativity, deviousness and willingness to suck up to the Chancellor. Each contestant will operate within his or her own school, and the goal will be twofold: to convince a majority of that school’s PA or PTA to accept whatever new policy or regulation is being promoted that week, and to undermine opposition to the Chancellor’s plans. Possible tasks will include generating support for the cell phone ban, choosing the Chancellor’s favored Learning Support Organization, and organizing a “spontaneous” parent rally opposing the UFT. Each week, the Chancellor will direct a principal to fire one contestant (hence the new rule), until only the winner remains.

The winner will be given a lucrative consulting job with either Alvarez and Marsal, Edison Schools or New Visions. The losers will become Deputy Chancellors at the DOE.

Bloomberg Plan to Expel 'Negative' PTA Leaders

Today, the NY Post reports on a Bloomberg administration plan to allow principals to remove PTA leaders for a pattern of "negative behavior". The Post quotes three parents on the proposed policy change:

CPAC Treasurer Suzanne Windland: "The way it's written now, the principal can basically get rid of the entire PTA if he doesn't like them. What's negative behavior? A voice a principal doesn't want to hear? A parent who rants and raves about something he or she finds unsatisfactory? That needs to be extremely clear."

Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters (and blogger here): "No one at DOE should be allowed to determine who parents elect to represent them. Tweed officials or principals are likely to abuse that power and make accusations against parents simply because they are strong leaders."

Monica Ayuso, a PTA president in Queens: "This is saying parents don't have any brains to make their own decisions."

Article is 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,

Tajik President To Become New Schools Chancellor

March 29, 2007 (GBN News): Emomali Rakhmon, currently President of Tajikstan, will soon become the New York City Schools Chancellor, replacing Joel Klein. In a surprise move, Mayor Bloomberg made the announcement today at a City Hall news conference. The Mayor praised the accomplishments of Mr. Klein, saying that he had done a “heckuva job”, but that it was “time for a change”.

Mayor Bloomberg did not offer any specific reasons as to why he had become disillusioned with Mr. Klein. However, sources said that the Mayor had come to realize that test scores and graduation rates were not going up as fast as desired, and he attributed this to "widespread defiance" of the Chancellor's ban on cell phones.

According to these sources, Mayor Bloomberg had read an article in yesterday’s New York Times about Mr. Rakhmon and felt that not only was his cell phone policy stricter than Mr. Klein’s, but his track record as Tajik strongman showed that he was capable of enforcing it. Among what the Times called a “series of idiosyncratic decrees”, Mr. Rakhmon has banned cell phones and cars for university students and ordered families to drop the Slavic “ov” from the names of new babies. The Mayor was also reportedly impressed that, as the Times put it, the Tajik president “won a third seven year term in November in a presidential election widely dismissed as a farce”.

Mayor Bloomberg dismissed criticism that President Rakhmon is a ruthless, autocratic dictator. “That’s what dictatorial control is all about”, the Mayor said. “Dictatorial control means dictatorial control, thank you very much. He is my representative, and he is going to do things that I believe in”. The Mayor added that Mr. Rakhmon should have no problems serving under him, stating, “We think alike.”

In what was termed a “lateral move”, the outgoing schools Chancellor is slated to replace Mr. Rakhmon as President of Tajikstan.

"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?