14,000

The piece below was submitted by a teacher. While the massive layoffs are probably averted due to the passing of the federal stimulus package bill, we may still see class sizes increase from attrition.

14,000

I’ve been preparing my fifth grade class for the up coming New York State Math Test. This is the pass or fail exam that parents, students and administrators alike are romanced into thinking will determine each and every child’s fate in the world. We were reviewing factors, multiples, primes and composites: The factors of 9 are 1, 9 and 3. The factors of 16 are 1,16, 2,8,and 4. Out of the blue one of my students, who regularly naps through math, perked up and asked the following:

“What are the factors of 14,000?”

I responded, “That’s kind of a big number. Any reason you chose 14,000?”

“Because that’s the number of teachers that are going to be fired by the mayor.”

He was right.

So, we went on to a much more interesting math problem.

If they’re about 1,100,000 students in the NYC school system, and approximately 79,000 teachers, what is the teacher to student ratio? We found it was about 13, well below what we know it to be. Then we figured that about 25% of those “teachers” were support teachers and specialists, so we did our math again. 60,000 teachers and 1,100,000 students, and the teacher to student ratio came about to about 1:18, still low as we looked around our classroom of 26 kids. We added 10 students to make it a more realistic average of 28 per class, which is congruent with our experience.

But then we fired 14,000 teachers.

And then we did the math.

Now the average was 23 students per teacher. We then estimated that this average was still low, so we added 10 students and got 33.

Then a student raised the question that left me stumped: Why?

Why not cut something else? Why not cut pay of administrators who work at city hall? Why doesn’t the city pave one less street per day to pay for more teachers? Why don’t we have one less bus stop fixed? Why can’t we figure this out?

I looked at my kids and said, “There are many things in this world that I can help you explore, find answers and sometimes simply more questions to research, but this is one area in which I am learning along with you.

Back to our math lesson and factors, multiples, primes and composites. But the mood had changed. The kids had learned a sobering lesson: That some numbers and equations just don’t add up, and never will.

Written by Otis Kriegel, Teacher in District 2 and founder of The K5: Elementary Education for Parents, a parent-advice website (www.TheK5.com)

Lessons for Michael Bloomberg on Presidents Day

In December 12, 1776, with the new nation on the brink of defeat, the 2nd Continental Congress granted George Washington “full power to order and direct all things relative to the department, and the operation of the war.”

On June 14, 2002, with the New York City Public Schools foundering, the Governor signed legislation granting Mayor Bloomberg the right to appoint a majority of the Board of Education, with power of removal. The Chancellor was designated Board Chair as well as the superintendent and chief executive officer, to “serve at the pleasure of and be employed by the Mayor of the City of New York.”

How Washington and Bloomberg used their broad powers is a study in contrasting leadership styles.

In his Pulitzer Prize-winning history, “Washington’s Crossing,” David Hackett Fischer describes how General of the Continental Army George Washington “found a way to combine energy and decision with the principles of a republican polity” by working closely with congressional officials and other civilian authorities.

In a contrary manner, Mayor Bloomberg now argues that the schools are exempt from the structures of local government and that he may act unilaterally, outside city purchasing, audit, and legislative mandates.

In their use of data, supposedly a signal accomplishment of the Mayor’s, the two men also differ. Rather than monopolizing data collection and dissemination, Washington encouraged “a free and open system of information gathering, engaged the efforts of many people, produced multiple sources, and got better results than closed systems.”

But these differences in acceptance of democratic principles are not merely structural or operational. They go to the character of the two gentlemen. As described by Fischer, Washington functioned “more as a leader than a commander; always listening, inspiring, guiding; rarely demanding, commanding, coercing.”

In two pivotal decisions, Washington demonstrated this trait of collaborative leadership, a characteristic the Mayor would do well to emulate. After the First Battle of Trenton, back on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware, with the British on the opposite shore still poised to take Philadelphia to end the War, Fischer writes that, “as at every difficult moment, Washington decided to convene a council of war.”

Rather than rendering a unilateral command decision, Washington led the council in an open discussion in which the General took pains to hide his own opinions, letting the purposely pluralistic membership freely argue their various proposals. “It was his way of encouraging open discussion and constructive debate,” Fischer concludes.

After deciding again to attack and successfully fending off the British and Hessians in the Second Battle of Trenton, Washington faced another critical decision: whether to withdraw or continue to engage the enemy, led by General Cornwallis. Fischer compares the councils formed by each:

“Cornwallis imposed his plan from the top down, against the judgment of able inferiors...Washington in his council of war welcomed the judgments of others and presided over an open process of discovery and decision that yielded yet another opportunity.”

Suppressing the desire to re-engage, the collective decision was made to withdraw the exhausted army from the Trenton battlefield, resulting in later victory at the Battle of Princeton. The rest, as they say, is history.

Leadership in the 21st century may have different demands than in 18th, but it is hard to believe that Bloomberg’s challenges are any more daunting than Washington’s quest for national survival. Yet even in the urgency of war and knowing the high stakes of broken confidences, Washington pursued a politics of openness and consensus.

I don’t know what debates may take place within the Mayor’s and Chancellor’s inner circle but as a long-time member and former President of a citywide parent organization created by the Chancellor ostensibly for the purpose of advising him, I know that we are not consulted and that our proffers of help are routinely rejected. The Mayor’s top-down approach is also well known, even to the point that his appointees to the city school board are removed if they oppose him and forbidden to speak publicly about their work.

As the Mayor contemplates his third term and educational legacy, perhaps it is time to learn the lessons of our greatest leader. Be open. Listen. Reject coercion. Pay attention to democratic principles, guide, and inspire.

---David C. Bloomfield is Professor of Educational Leadership at Brooklyn College and the author of American Public Education Law (Peter Lang, 2007)

Let us also remember: Washington famously refused to run for a third term, even though he was encouraged to do so, believing "that no president should serve more than two terms lest he be looked upon as a king." In contrast, Bloomberg showed no such reluctance -- collaborating with the Council to revoke term limits unilaterally, even though NYers had voted twice against this.

Term limits: the NY Times shows its hypocrisy

The NY Times reveals its double standard when it comes to democracy here in NYC.

Though the editors of the paper now insist that since Venezuelans "believe in their democracy" they should vote against extending term limits for their President, the paper vehemently opposed the same right for New Yorkers less than six months ago.

Indeed, Hugo Chavez has proven himself to be more of a democrat than Bloomberg, who refused to give voters the chance to decide on term limits -- a position that the Times supported. In this case, the ruling class reserved the right to keep one of its own in office -- whatever New Yorkers might prefer.

NY Times Editorial: Venezuelans' Right to Say No
Published: February 13, 2009

Hugo Chávez apparently doesn't believe Venezuelan voters, who just more than a year ago rejected his bid to eliminate the term limits that are blocking his continued rule. On Sunday, he is giving them another chance. For the sake of Venezuela's democracy, they should again vote no on changing the nation's constitution. . . . . Voters should not yield. Mr. Chávez needs to be reminded that Venezuelans believe in their democracy and cherish their right to say no.

NY Times Editorial: Term Limits and the Council
Published: October 22, 2008

The City Council is expected to vote on Thursday on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to revise New York City's term-limits law. The proposal would allow the mayor and most of the city's elected officials to run for a third four-year term. We urge the Council to approve it. . . . We are fully aware that this proposal has stirred great controversy,not least because New York City voters twice voted for term limits, in 1993 and 1996. . . . . .We agree with the mayor that the Council is best positioned to quickly settle the matter. It would be technically difficult and perhaps legally problematic to organize a meaningful citywide referendum before the 2009 elections.

thanks to Mel Meer.

Rob Caloras on Bloomberg's authoritarian arrogance

At a recent press conference, Mayor Bloomberg stated that people who want to change the school governance law are either irrational or putting their own self interest ahead of students. On his radio show he said that, there would be riots in the streets if his control over the schools is not continued.

Over the past two years, I have had discussions with many people who stated their well reasoned opposition to the current law, based upon their desire for providing students with a top quality education. It seems to me Mayor Bloomberg’s position is irrational and based on his desire to control every aspect of the New York City Public Education system, regardless of the consequences to our children’s interests.

First, his claim that there will be riots in the street if he does not get his way speaks volumes about his over-inflated sense of self. I suppose we would also have riots if he does not win a third term. Also, most observers of the current system acknowledge that the rules and intent of the Law are not being followed.

Simply put, the Law was not intended to give Mayor Bloomberg the degree of control that he has been exercising. He violated the law by eliminating local school districts and eviscerating their authority, by stripping authority from district superintendents to the point that, in some districts, they are prohibited from entering schools, by not seeking the advice of the Panel for Education Policy and making this panel a rubber stamp whose members risk dismissal if they suggest disagreement with policies emanating from the Mayor and Chancellor, and by not seeking meaningful input from Community District Education Councils on education and zoning matters that affect their respective districts.

We, the people who seek changes in the law, want mechanisms to ensure enforcement of its provisions and assurances that the Mayor will consider and accommodate the concerns of those working in our schools and those whose children use our public schools. Are we irrational? No, but I am concerned about the man who has invoked the fear of riots.

Second, it takes a special kind of arrogance (“chutzpah”) to accuse we who seek changes in the law of being motivated by self interest. Many of us have children in the public schools and cannot afford non-public schools and there is probably nothing more important to us than our children’s education. We worry about the quality of teaching, curriculum, school services, school safety because our children’s future depends upon them. In essence, our interest is vested in education, not selfish needs. Compare us to our Mayor: He never had a child in New York City public schools, or any pubic school, never worried that his child’s future would be bleak if his or her education was of a low quality. Clearly his interest is not vested with our children’s education, rather, it stems more from politics and ego.

In evaluating school governance, there is a difference between mayoral energy and autocratic license, between leadership and authoritarianism. It is a challenge to create a law that allows leadership without allowing for easy degeneration into authoritarianism. The current law does not meet that challenge, but if changes are made that create effective checks and balances, clear lines of authority, and meaningful oversight, that challenge will be met. To do otherwise is irrational.

--Rob Caloras is President of the Community Education Council in District 26, Queens

School construction funds blocked in stimulus bill

Well, you win some and you lose some.

The deal was made yesterday on the federal stimulus package. According to the WSJ, the "state stabilization fund" was increased to $53.6 billion from $44 billion, which is still far less than the $95 billion the House had originally proposed. There are estimates are that about $1 billion of that may come to NYC schools, which will help prevent massive teacher layoffs, though gaps in education funding will likely remain -- unless we continue to fight for restorations in the state and city budgets.

The biggest disappointment is that all targeted funds for new school construction were eliminated -- though districts can take funds out of the stabilization program to modernize or repair schools if they so choose.

According to the NY Times, the insistence of the GOP "moderates" about eliminating the school construction funds almost blocked the deal from happening:

House Democrats, angry over some of the cuts, particularly for school construction, initially balked at the deal and delayed a final meeting on Wednesday afternoon between House and Senate negotiators. ....Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference that the delay helped House Democrats win some final concessions, including an agreement to let states use some money in a fiscal stabilization fund for school renovations.

But not to build new schools.

For some reason, the GOP Senators were especially adamant that no federal funds should go to new school construction, which Republican members have been opposed to ever since the 1950's. During that era, President Eisenhower proposed a federal role in school construction, just as the feds were helping to build roads, bridges, etc. -- yet his own party blocked this from occurring.

Meanwhile, according to EdWeek, Klein was up in DC, emphasizing the need for federal funding for "data systems" and teacher performance pay! Which shows you where his priorities lie.

So, thanks to those of you who called and emailed -- we were partially successful, and at least we got the message across that NYC parents care about class size, new school construction and preventing layoffs of teachers.

Let's harness that energy in the weeks to come towards restoring the cuts in the state and city's education budget, and especially, to improve the administration's proposed capital budget for schools which remains pitifully inadequate.

See this earlier post by Joan Walsh in Salon, Party on GOP, bemoaning the fervent opposition of the Republican party to building new schools, despite the crying need for them. What could be more Un-American?

DOE Welcomes the U.S. Army into Nine NYC Public High Schools, More Likely to Follow

The New York Post and Newsday today brought us the disturbing news that nine NYC public high schools plus a tenth school in New Jersey will be partnering with the U.S. Army to learn “life skills.” As the Post states, “…students will be drilled by soldiers in setting goals,” adding later the preposterous assertion from military officials that “the project is not a recruitment tool.”

The program will be overseen through the DOE’s Public School Athletic League (PSAL), but the true coordinating body is a nonprofit organization called Academics in Motion (AIM) that already operates in all ten of those schools under a five-year, $1 million contract from the DOE. While their program until now appears to have been a positive one in motivating students through athletics, this new arrangement calls their presence and their contract with DOE into question and raises serious civil liberties concerns regarding campus access to and recruiting of high school students.

Neither newspaper listed the nine NYC high schools. They are New Dorp, Curtis, and Port Richmond in Staten Island; Tilden, Canarsie, and Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn; Jamaica in Queens; and Kennedy and Columbus in the Bronx. AIM claims involvement of 500 student/athletes currently, but a September 15, 2008 article on iHigh.com (New York High School News and Sports) stated that their plans for 2008/09 were to increase to 20 high schools and 2,000 students in their program. Thus, we have the near-term potential for this new military presence to double its number of access points within our public high schools and quadruple the number of students with whom the military has direct contact.

Following upon the unwelcome news earlier this year that the DOE was removing control over distribution of student information to military services from individual schools and principals and centralizing it behind their own closed doors, this announcement marks a second step through which the DOE/U.S. military relationship appears to be growing increasingly cozy. As is invariably the case, there is no evidence that CEC’s or parent organizations in any of the affected schools or school districts were given the opportunity to decline the military’s aggressive new presence in their schools. For the politicians considering the merits (or lack thereof) of mayoral control, here is another prime example of unilateral DOE actions likely taken against parents’ wishes but certainly done so without their meaningful participation or even consultation.

Parents and PTA/PA organizations already concerned about military recruiting at their schools may want to contact the NYCLU or the Students or Soldiers? Coalition.

Power to the parents indeed!

For an excellent dissection of the administration's announcement that they will spend half a million dollars to have parents cast a straw vote (read: meaningless) in the election this spring for Community Education Councils (themselves powerless, since the Chancellor refuses to consult them about any decision of importance), see InsideSchools here.

The biggest joke is the website for voting, which will be called powertotheparents.org!

What can they be thinking?

While our schools are already bursting at the gills, and enrollment is still rising due to higher birth rates, more development, the shuttering of parochial schools, and parents choosing public schools over private due to their reduced economic circumstances, now the city is planning to close numerous day care centers that will send at least 3,300 more kindergartners into the public school system-- without a place to put them.

Yet another instance of the poor planning of this administration -- and the total lack of coordination of city agencies -- despite the advantages that Mayoral control was supposed to bring.

Kindergartners may lose their day care

Leonie's testimony

A debate on Mayoral control

A real debate on Mayoral control at the Assembly hearings on Feb. 6 -- between two middle school students, Daniel Clark Jr. and LeiShawn McClean, both from Democracy Prep Charter school. Here, here! Now this is democracy.

Video thanks to Elizabeth Green of Gotham Schools.


Democracy Prep Charter School Students Testify on Both Sides of Mayoral Control Debate before New York State Assembly from Elizabeth Green on Vimeo.

Change Mayoral Control? Beware the Mushroom Cloud!

It now appears that four of five years of spewing false dichotomies about mayoral control of the City’s public schools at the press and anyone else who will listen are no longer enough for Mayor Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, and their various mouthpieces.

In his weekly radio show on Saturday, as reported in yesterday’s New York Post, the Mayor elected to up the ante. In a stunning combination of hyperbole, fear-mongering, and Panglossian repetition of his “best of all possible worlds” mantras, Mayor Bloomberg effectively declared that failure of the State legislature to renew mayoral dictatorship in its present form could lead to “riots in the streets.” “If they didn’t do that [retain mayoral control],” he stated, “I think that there’d be riots in the streets, given the improvement” to the NYC public school system.

This from the man who believes the Mayoralty belongs to him simply because he can outbid anyone else who dares compete and then calls his control of the schools under this scenario accountability. This from the man who believes that his and his cronies’ voices outweigh the combined voices of New Yorkers who voted twice by referendum for mayoral term limits and then asserts that public school parents do have a voice in their children’s education. This as well from the man who, along with his equally unaccountable Schools’ Chancellor, persistently uses data as a bludgeon over principals and teachers to pervert the very meaning of education and then asserts that the public should trust his benign dictatorship over the public school system.

Plowing millions into misleading, “feel good” public relations via the Fund for Public Schools, Learn NY, and similar organizations is apparently not enough. Repeatedly declaring that the only choices are the current Mayoral dictatorship or chaotic reversion to the worst of old times are apparently not enough. Manipulating DOE data to misrepresent reality and even create his own reality while ignoring the day-to-day reality in classrooms is apparently not enough. Summarily firing those on the Panel for Education Policy who disagreed with him and installing a Panel of eight puppets (with Patrick Sullivan as the lone real parent representative) has apparently not been enough. The time has arrived to borrow a page from the Bush/Rove, “keep ‘em scared” playbook and escalate from a Code Yellow to a Code Orange threat level status.

Maybe he’s got it backward. If mayoral control is retained as is, perhaps the riots will indeed come, led by the disenfranchised parents (at least those who haven’t already left the system, or the City, in disgust) and frustrated teachers who still teach but no longer educate. In the meantime, we can all look forward to the next step in this process, when Mayor Bloomberg goes to Code Red and begins alluding to “smoking guns” and “mushroom clouds.”

Bloomberg's solution to school overcrowding

Yesterday’s Times features an article about the Mayor’s proposal to convert parochial schools into charter schools.

Bloomberg said that this would “bring stability and much-needed predictability back to families with children at some of the 14 schools in Brooklyn and Queens that the diocese has said it may close at the end of the academic year because of declining enrollment and rising operating costs.”

But when has Bloomberg or Klein ever cared about the need for stability or predictability for our regular public schools --- with four drastic reorganizations in six years; increased levels of overcrowding in neighborhoods throughout the city, rising class sizes, and now, threatened budget cuts of over $1 billion, including his threat to fire 15,000 teachers?

As mentioned in the Times article, the parochial schools may be facing financial disaster, but unmentioned is the fact that our city schools are as well; should we be subsidizing the education of these children at the further expense of our own?

Every dollar provided to charter school takes funds out the limited operating funds for our own public schools. How many more dollars would we lose as a result; how many more teachers? Meanwhile the charter schools are allowed to cap class sizes at much lower levels.

At least during the press conference, the mayor admitted one thing that the administration usually denies: That public schools in Brooklyn and Queens “are already at or near capacity” and that we “just do not have enough classroom space for those who are currently going to school.” He suggested that the new charter schools relieve some of the overcrowding in neighborhood public schools.

On the one hand, his statements are a refreshing contrast to the administration's usual disingenuous claim that the problem of public school overcrowding is only a “pocket” phenomenon.

Yet there is another alternative to the ongoing crisis in school overcrowding, not mentioned by the Mayor nor in any press account I have seen – the option of the city acquiring these parochial school buildings at low cost, and turning them into regular public schools.

Repeatedly, over the years, DOE officials have refused the pleas of Brooklyn and Queens public school parents to lease already-vacated parochial school buildings to help ease overcrowding in their communities– telling them that this is impossible, since the Church refuses to allow sex education to be taught in these buildings!

Now they have the nerve to suggest that if parents want to avoid the overcrowding in their local public schools, they can enroll their kids in charter schools, run in partnership with the Church. This comes close to forcing parents into choosing these questionable charters, because the city refuses to do its job in creating enough public school space.

This issue raises another question; one of access. The Bishop of Brooklyn is able to advocate directly with the Mayor for the benefit of parochial schools; the Robin Hood and Gates Foundations, along with the Center for Charter School Excellence, and the children of billionaires who have started their own charter schools, are able to advocate with him for the benefit of charter schools; but who advocates for our regular public schools?

Not the Chancellor, who at every opportunity gives the charter schools precious public school space, and the authority to cap enrollment and class size at lower levels.

He and the Mayor also continually boast about the success of charter schools. Even in the press release about the new plan to “save” the parochial schools , the test scores of charter schools are favorably compared to those of regular public schools. On this occasion, the Mayor also praised parochial schools for their “focus on high academic standards and high student achievement."

What does it say about a Mayor and a Chancellor who brag about how much better the schools are that they do not run? As the Mayor himself said at his press conference with the Bishop of Brooklyn, this proposal would have been “inconceivable” under a different governance system.

As Diane Ravitch pointed out in her testimony to the Assembly on Mayoral control, the fact that the Chancellor refuses to stand up and fight for our kids is a sign that there is something fundamentally wrong with the current governance system:

The chancellor’s primary obligation is to protect the best interests of the students. If elected officials say that they must cut the schools’ budget, the chancellor should be the voice of the school system, fighting for the interests of the children and the schools. If the chancellor is appointed by the mayor, his first obligation is to the mayor, not the children.

The Times article says “The plan would require approval by the Legislature because state law bars charter schools from having any ties to religious institutions.”

Let’s hope this is true. Meanwhile, people ought to let their Legislators know how they feel about this proposal.

Diane Ravitch speaks the truth on Mayoral control

See video below of Diane Ravitch's impressive testimony on Mayoral control, and questions from the State Assembly members. In response to a question from chair of the Education committee, Cathy Nolan, she also has some choice words to say about the reliability of the State Education Department.

Excerpt: "Never before in the history of NYC have the mayor and the chancellor exercised total, unlimited, unrestricted power over the daily life of the schools. No other school district in the United States is operated in this authoritarian fashion.

We have often been told by city officials that the results justify continuation of this authoritarian control. They say that test scores have dramatically improved. But no independent source verifies these assertions...

[The Chancellor who is ] the leader of the school system should be appointed by the independent board, not by the mayor. The chancellor’s primary obligation is to protect the best interests of the students. If elected officials say that they must cut the schools’ budget, the chancellor should be the voice of the school system, fighting for the interests of the children and the schools. If the chancellor is appointed by the mayor, his first obligation is to the mayor, not the children.

thanks to David Bellel for the video.

For news clips on the Assembly hearings yesterday, see Klein Defends Mayoral Control of Public Schools (NY Times) , Joel Klein under fire admits bus bungle (Daily News), 200 Pack Hearing on Mayoral Control of Schools (WNYC), Debate Over Schools Control Heats Up At Hearing (NY1) and several entries at Gotham Schools.

Testimony on Mayoral Control For Assembly Education Committee

I testified at Friday's Assembly Education Committee hearing on school governance. Thanks to Assembly Chairperson Cathy Nolan and Assembly Members O'Donnell, Brennan, Kavanaugh and Benedetto for their attention.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Patrick J. Sullivan, the Manhattan Representative to the Panel for Educational Policy appointed by Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer.

Over the last year, Borough President Stringer has recommended a number of revisions to the school governance structure. I will summarize those recommendations in my testimony, but I would like to focus today illustrating why these changes are necessary based on my experience on the PEP.


Make the Board a More Effective Check and Balance Mechanism

With regard to the PEP, we recommend several measures to strengthen the board so as to serve as a more effective check and balance mechanism against abuse of mayoral control and to more effectively represent the viewpoints of parents:

1. The terms of the members should be fixed rather than having them serve at the pleasure of the appointing official.
2. The board should be reduced to include fewer mayoral appointees.
3. The authority of the city board should be clarified with regard to policy and budgetary approval.

Transparency and Customary Rules of Order

In my experience I have seen how the lack of independence of the PEP members has allowed the Chancellor to manage the PEP with complete disregard for how a board of directors should function. For example:

• Meeting agendas are typically distributed only a few days in advance.
• Presentation materials are rarely made available to members before the meeting. When they are provided it is typically within 24 hours of the meeting.
• Under its bylaws the PEP is supposed to meet in executive session once a year to discuss how to improve its functioning but this meeting has not been held, at least since I joined 22 months ago.
• Members may request roll call votes under the bylaws but my attempts to do so have been refused.
• There are no transcripts. Meeting minutes have not been not distributed since early 2007.
• There is no audit committee.
• Investigative reports of the Special Commissioner for Investigation are not provided to the board as required by executive order.

These poor practices serve to obscure the workings of the board and inhibit communication between the PEP members and the public school families they are supposed to represent. A board structured to be more independent, especially with a provision for fixed terms would provide the members with sufficient security to set higher standards for the conduct of the board.

Budget Decisions

I would like to discuss some of the votes where I dissented from the majority positions. I am extraordinarily fortunate to be appointed and supported by Borough President Stringer who has insisted that we always represent the best interest of the children even if it means drawing the ire of the mayor and chancellor. I think these examples will illustrate both how the board functions today and suggest how a more independent one would achieve a more balanced outcome:

Operating Budget

When the Chancellor brought to the PEP a budget that provided steep cuts in operating funds for many schools I objected. I explained that by state law we are tasked with proposing a budget sufficient to fund school operations and we should not send to the City Council a budget that clearly did not do so. We were also asked to approve a high level budget without being presented with sufficient detail to understand the spending. The budget was approved with eight votes in favor and my one against. Nevertheless, the City Council determined that the budget was insufficient to fund the schools and restored enough funds to eliminate cuts. Rather than starting with the funding provided by the mayor and reducing expenditures to achieve his desired balance, a more independent board would put forward a transparent budget with the “total sum of money deemed necessary” as state law requires.

Capital Budget

Similarly with the capital budget we see how the board’s insistence on rubber stamping the mayor’s proposal shortchanges our children. The capital budget vote was especially marred by a lack of candor and transparency. Both DOE and the School Construction Authority asserted that the current plan, now in its final year, would improbably accomplish all its goals: reduction of class sizes to 20 in every classroom K – 3, elimination of portables and an end to split sessions. Furthermore, the administration provided no credible explanation as to how this spending would align with their own class size reduction goals required by Contracts for Excellence statues and regulations. Despite the readily demonstrable inadequacy of the plan, it was passed again with only my one dissenting vote. We now have a new five year plan ready for approval this month yet no needs analysis or assessment has been provided. The PEP is simply told to believe that what the mayor is willing to spend is exactly what the children need. An independent board would require a careful assessment of need be published and spending be aligned with statutory and regulatory requirements.

Special Education System Contract

There is an acute need for the State Legislature to clarify what spending must be approved by the city board. When I read in the press that we would sign $55 million contract for a new special education system, I asked the DOE general counsel if the PEP would vote to approve the contract. I pointed to state law requiring approval of any contract which would "significantly impact the provision of educational services or programming". He explained that the new system “is not changing either the nature of the services we deliver or the manner in which we deliver them” and therefore no vote is required. When I objected on the record at the January PEP meeting, Chancellor Klein questioned what the purpose of such a vote would be. I explained that before voting, I would make sure all the CDECs and especially the CCSE reviewed the system requirements, provided input and preferably issued a resolution or letter endorsing the project and/or stating concerns.
But the Chancellor did not see the need or benefit for such collaboration. CCSE was never invited to provide input. Like me, John Englert, the president of CCSE read about it in the press. The Chancellor explained to me the PEP had been functioning this way for seven years. He didn't see any need to change. Hopefully the Assembly will see to it that the families whose children are served by the public school system have this reasonable and appropriate input into these massive expenditures. I suggest to you that all contracts above some set threshold be approved by the city board.

Policy Decisions

Gifted and Talented Admissions

The new Gifted and Talented admissions policy is a comprehensive failure of educational policy. Ostensibly seeking to improve equity, the Chancellor swept away the various admissions criteria employed by the schools and districts and replaced them with two standardized tests. Like many, I warned Deputy Chancellor Lyles that the new tests, focusing more on preparedness than giftedness, would only shift G&T seats from low income to higher income neighborhoods. Even one of the mayor’s appointees told me I was “100% correct on this issue”. Now the damage has been done with many programs in low income neighborhoods shuttered and new classes skewing even more heavily toward higher income students. A more independent board would never stand for this poorly considered policy.


8th Grade Retention

The original PEP was opposed to the mayor’s testing-based retention policy. As a result, several members were removed in the hours before they were to vote on this controversial policy. When we were asked to vote on 8th grade retention a wide spectrum of academics and community leaders protested the weak underpinnings of the policy and the total absence of any program to improve education in the middle schools. The research and evidence from other similar policies in Chicago and elsewhere demonstrate they are extremely costly and don’t work. Even with a more independent board the mayor may have eventually implemented his policy. The difference is that it would he would have had to couple test-based retention with a real plan for addressing the needs of struggling students with proven approaches including tutoring and smaller classes. I heard Deputy Mayor Walcott explain earlier today how the candid debate we had helped to improve the policy. I would disagree with him and point to how the Bloomberg administration, after contracting with the RAND corporation to study the test-based retention program implemented in 5th grade still refuses to release the research reports to the public. I've brought them here to show you; you can see there are hundreds of pages. This information should be not be surpressed but rather released to inform the debate.

Parental Involvement

I would like to conclude by asking the Assembly to strengthen the Community District Education Councils as bodies representative of the parent perspective. The ambiguity of the law with respect to CDEC duties, responsibilities, and powers must be clarified. In many ways, Community Boards are analogous to CDECs. Our City Charter clearly outlines the functions of Community Boards and there is no ambiguity on which planning decisions they are required to offer opinions. I would urge the State Legislature to use the language in New York City’s Charter with respect to Community Boards as a guide for outlining the duties and responsibilities of CDECs.

I have always sought input from CDECs on policy and budget votes. Requiring advisory votes from CDECs which the PEP members would be expected to follow would be one way to channel parent input into policy decisions.


I hope today I’ve been able to provide you with insight into the functioning of the current citywide board. In its current form the Panel for Educational Policy does not make policy or even meaningfully advise the chancellor. Those roles are reserved for the chancellor's management consultants and the distant foundations of wealthy men: the Broad Foundation, Gates Foundation and Dell Foundation. But we parents know better. The real insight into the challenges of urban education lies in the communities, school leadership teams, PTAs, community councils. We will never have real improvement in our schools until we embrace parents as real partners in the education of their children. I urge you to restore balance, order and even simple decency to the governance of our schools.

Thank you for your time.