Tim Johnson on Mayoral Control and More

Leonie Haimson Blasts Mayor/Tweed on Parent Survey

Yesterday, those of who participated in the focus groups asked other parents to return the new parent survey, due to be distributed this week, with its questions crossed out and a suggested statement on the top saying “We want real parent input – as well as smaller classes, less testing, and new priorities at Tweed to deal with the real problems in our schools.” (You should of course feel free to substitute whatever sentence you like about what our schools really need to improve.)

In response, the Mayor said at his news conference yesterday that those of those of us who are calling for real parent input into our schools only want to “subvert the system and sit around and complain and not make it any better.”

I want to make it perfectly clear that none of us who participated in the focus groups were ever out to “subvert the system.” We volunteered in good faith and spent many hours over two days, to provide realistic and relevant suggestions so that this $25 million survey could be meaningful and useful. We were explicitly told that our suggestions would determine the questions asked. Instead, most of the issues we cared about were censored, for no apparent reason.

Moreover, those who signed our letter include members of CECs, President’s councils and other active, engaged parents who work hard every day, for no pay and little recognition to try to make this system work better for our kids. Not one of them can be called a slacker or a complainer. We were all extremely disappointed that our input was ignored – and that specific questions were omitted about class size, overcrowding, the amount of testing and test prep in our schools, the curriculum, the principal’s attitude towards parent input and involvement, and/or whether there is a functional School Leadership Team in the school.

Read Leonie's full report with links at:
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/

Tweed school budget plan is NOT about shifting quality teachers to struggling schools...

David Bloomfield, a parent, a Professor at Brooklyn College and President of the Citywide Council on High Schools, in a powerful summary of his opposition to the agreement between the Mayor and the UFT-led coalition, has one statement that I feel needs some elucidating. Read his full comment below my analysis.

When Bloomfield says....

"One of the best mayoral initiatives – equalizing school funding and the distribution of quality teachers – has been left in tatters" ...

.....I'm concerned he and others might be misled by the rhetoric coming out of Tweed and City Hall. The irony of the entire mayoral initiative on the school funding issue has been missed by many. While claiming to want distribute “quality” teachers - and I would take issue that a 20 year teacher is necessarily more adept than say a 5 or 7 year teacher - the reality has been that attempts to drive senior teachers from the system have taken place in many schools.

In fact, many of us saw the funding plan for what it was -- an attempt to create a system of “peace corps” teachers who stay no longer than 5 years by giving principals a further incentive to drive senior teachers out. Just think: low salaries, docile teachers who don’t know their union rights, few pensions, etc. The mantra is to teacher-proof the process in an assembly line manner and use professional development (often by non-public organizations - see the 9 whatever they call it groups) to train a constantly turning over staff.

The idea that they want to distribute “quality” teachers is a sham because they could have done so by offering incentives to teachers to teach in certain areas. (When I started teaching in the late 60’s they gave every teacher in Title 1 schools extra free time to prepare/recover.)

If you remove teacher salaries from the equation, what other areas has the DOE been able to point to for other inequalities in funding? And since Tweed has total control, what has stopped them from moving money around over the last 5 years to change this? The current reorganization has been unilateral until now and will be so again. This is all about politics, as usual, not education. But it was never about education in the first place."

Note: We hear the "teacher quality" argument used by Klein to argue against class size reductions,ironically today by Michael Rubel, a top Randi Weingarten ally. How come they never talk about "teacher quality" as it relates to teachers coming under attack in so many quarters and how quality is affected by the consequential resulting exodus that makes crossing the Red Sea look like a stroll in a stream?

Bloomfield's complete post to nyceducationnews list:
I think yesterday’s (Apr. 19) agreement allowed the Mayor to indulge in a classic divide and conquer strategy. Privatization and an extremely flawed accountability system, for example, were left unaddressed. Special education? The incoherent supervisory structure? The mayhem of principals disregarding their schools while they try to make sense of the restructuring and start the endless process of trolling for ESOs, LSOs, PSOs? One of the best mayoral initiatives – equalizing school funding and the distribution of quality teachers – has been left in tatters. Promises of consultation on class size, drop out prevention, and middle school reform seem little more than crumbs. Elected and statutory parent voices were abandoned. I am extremely disappointed, especially when many of us have stood side-by-side supporting our coalition colleagues, expecting reciprocity. The High School Council and others called for a broad public discussion of the interconnected pieces of the Mayor’s plan. Yesterday’s surprise announcement has done a great disservice to public school students by seeming to foreclose that comprehensive, transparent public review. But we should continue to fight for that debate and for constructive DOE responses to unresolved issues. While our bonds are strained, I hope they are not broken.

David Bloomfield
Professor, Brooklyn College
President, Citywide Council on High Schools

BloomKlein Inaction - Wed. Jan. 17, 2007

A preview of today's activities reported the night before they happen:

1pm at City Hall: Bloomberg announces sweeping changes in the very system he created without once saying there were any mistakes made that would require them to reorganize again. This time it will be boroughs. And when that fails -- hmmm. How about trying local districts?

Your erstwhile Wave reporter will be at this one (maybe):
3:30pm at Tweed: Klein holds press roundtable at a rectangular table, (but why quibble) as he explains the fantastic success of his reorganization of the schools has spawned a new reorganization, this time into even larger entities that will be guaranteed to deliver even less services than the old system. He will announce that he paid A&M consultants 200 million dollars to save a buck fifty. Having only 5 borough regions superintendents will save even more money, but of course their much larger staffs will balance that out. Every school will be forced into empowerment zones which will be monitored by DOE officials who will spend the day driving enormous distances from school to school. He will announce that A&M recommends the DOE hire chauffeur-driven cars for every LIS since that will save money. And since all schools will be empowerment schools, there will be no schools left in the boroughs for the new regions to manage. A&M recommended that with nothing else to do the boroughs invade parochial schools and try to mismanage them. Christopher Cerf will spearhead the movement to identify every school in an area of gentrification that can be sold off and turned into condos. A push will be made to get kids to stay home and be taught by private tutors. Klein will point to this plan from A&M as a brilliant way to reduce class size, which he will point out has no impact on learning, but at least this will shut Leonie Haimson up once and for all.

Now that we know what will happen, do I really need to cover this event?