Archives for the month of: November, 2013
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

EduShyster: Getting Big $$$ on the Charter Gravy Train

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2013 //
13

EduShyster, tongue firmly planted in cheek, defends the huge salaries collected by charter operators in New York City. That’s the price of excellence, she says. She links to an article by Rachel Monahan of the New York Daily News, who listed 16 charter executives who make more money to run a small charter school or a small charter chain than the chancellor of the City of New York. Missing from Monahan’s list was Geoffrey Canada, who is paid somewhere between $400,000-500,000. .

Some of those on Monahan’s list have charters in other cities, and it would be interesting to know if they are receiving additional payments as executives in multiple sites.

When you see these rewards, you can understand the lure of charters for those young people who are eager for fame and fortune. They won’t win it in the classroom, so it makes sense to open a charter, spend huge amounts of money to market the product and lure customers, conduct a lottery (thus excluding the families who are not alert enough to do the paperwork for a lottery), exclude students with severe disabilities and students who don’t speak English, and counsel out troublemakers and students with low scores. It is a formula that always works!

And those who follow the formula get very rich and are idolized by the media.

Collateral damage: America’s democratic public school system.

Tough. But that’s the price of excellence for the few.

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization

Princeton: Do Suburban Charters Increase Segregation?

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2013 //
41

Bruce Baker of Rutgers has found many examples of urban charter schools that cherrypick their students, leaving out the students who are costliest to educate and boasting of their success when they enroll notably more advantaged students than the local public schools.

He decided to do a similar check on the Princeton Charter School, located in an affluent township with many excellent private schools. What he found was a charter school that enrolled students with only the mildest disabilities than the public schools. In effect, what he learned was that:

Put bluntly, these figures show that the parent population of Princeton Charter is obligating the parents of much less advantaged children, including parents of children with special education needs, subsidize their preference to have a school more like the private day schools along Great Road.

While I’m still not entirely sure what to make of this… it does concern me.

It also ought to raise questions for leaders of private school alternatives in these communities. On balance, I’ve never seen the charter school movement as a particular competitive threat to private independent day schools, as charters have often been primarily urban, serving minority populations and employing “no excuses” strategies that most parents in leafy suburbs would not find palatable for their own children.

Urban charter schools have arguably taken their toll on urban catholic school enrollments, but that’s another story. But, to the extent that state charter policies permit the type of school establishment and segregation going on in Princeton, more an more parents may find ways to organize quasi-private-elite schools to serve their needs – effectively seeking taxpayer charity to support their country club preferences. This indeed may pose a threat to financially less well endowed private schools.

In a twisted sort of way, it’s rather like asking your local public parks department to pay for your membership to the local private country club – thus reducing the quality of services to others who really don’t have access to the country club (even if it proclaims it’s open to all comers).

Much more to ponder here… but the numbers on Princeton Charter School certainly raise some serious red flags.

Categories Charter Schools

Los Angeles Baffled About How to Pay for iPads in Future

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2013 //
24

Los Angeles negotiated a sweet deal for Apple, promising to buy an iPad for every student at a cost that will eventually total at least $1 billion.

Forget the fact that the iPads are financed in large part by borrowing money from a 25-year construction bond issue, and that many schools will not get the repairs and upgrades they need.

Forget the fact that the iPads are loaded with Pearson content that is not yet complete.

Forget the fact that Los Angeles agreed to pay more for the iPads than their retail cost.

Forget the fact that the iPads will be obsolete in three years and the Pearson content is licensed for only three years.

Here is the question: How will Los Angeles pay for new iPads in three years? How can it afford to pay for the iPads it just agreed to buy? How will Los Angeles pay to repair its crumbling schools? Where will it find the money to reduce class sizes, some of which are staggering?

And behind it all is a lingering question: If the Common Core testing must be done online, and if every district in California is required to buy computers and establish the necessary bandwidth for Common Core testing, how many billions of dollars will be spent nationally to pay the cost of Common Core testing? If Los Angeles spent $1 billion, what will it cost for the nation?

One begins to understand why the tech corporations are so enthusiastic about Common Core.

 

Categories Common Core, Los Angeles

Principal Rob Miller: Remembering Steve

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2013 //
19

Not long ago, I honored Rob Miller, principal of Jenks Middle School in Oklahoma, for refusing to bow down to the Oklahoma Department of Education. A large number of parents at Rob’s school opted out of the state test, and the state accused the principal of egging them on. They ransacked his emails in search of incriminating evidence but never found any. I admired Rob Miller because he wouldn’t let the state intimidate him. I didn’t realize until I read the piece linked here that Rob Miller had been a Marine. No way was the state superintendent, until recently a dentist, going to get away with pushing Rob Miller around.

Rob sent me this very personal piece. It’s about a boy he knew very well in school. He barely scraped through. He was the kind of boy who would have dropped put of school if the Common Core had been the state curriculum.

This is a story that Rob Miller needed to share. I feel honored that he shared it with me.

I think you should read it. If you are a teacher, you have had boys like Steve in your class. If you are a parent, you may have a child like Steve.

Some people want to throw away kids like Steve. Some think that if we ratchet up the pressure and make school harder, kids like Steve will change and become college-and-career-ready.

Read about Steve and find out who you are.

Categories Oklahoma, Personal

A Columnist at the Toledo Blade Supports Public Education

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2013 //
14

At any previous time in American history, I can’t imagine writing a column with this title. Almost every American understood that public education is one of the most important democratic institutions in our society. There were a few curmudgeons here and there who didn’t want to pay to educate other people’s children, but their numbers were always small, and their complaints were dismissed as idle grumbling.

Now there is a full-bore attack on the very existence of public education. Billionaires and their paid minions wage war on the concept of public education. They push vouchers, charters, homeschooling, online schooling, for-profit schooling, and most anything they can think of that will starve public schools into submission or obsolescence. They lack any sense of civic obligation.

Yet here is Marilou Johanek, a columnist for the Toledo Blade, saying what used to be simple common sense, and today it sounds like a revelation. We ALL have an obligation to provide a strong public school system for all our children.

Johanek gives the spotlight to a grassroots group that has formed to tight Governor John Kasich’s privatization steamroller.

She notes the tsunami of bad ideas that have suddenly descended on the public schools, once seen as the bastion of our democracy:

Public schools are buffeted by all sorts of competing agendas that seek to influence policy on charter schools, vouchers, value-added measures, unfunded mandates, high-stakes tests, and Common Core. Who wants a piece of the public school action?

Those who work in local schools are as frustrated as those on the outside, trying to make sense of the upheaval. Educators are exasperated with cyclical attempts at school reform that are hastily embraced and poorly developed.

Administrators are tired of begging for money. Property owners are sick of school levies. Parents are dismayed with eliminated programs, laid-off faculty and staff, and pay-to-play sports.

Students are numb and joyless about learning. They’re guinea pigs for revised expectations, exams, and for-profit education.

Public education is at a crossroads. It needs advocates to sustain it as an indispensable public service. Fortunately, a grass-roots campaign is forming to raise awareness of what’s at stake in public education.

The good news is that citizens are mobilizing to save public education.

She writes:

Groups of stakeholders, calling themselves Friends of Public Education, are mobilizing in several states, including Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. Their mission is to become informed activists in defense of public schools.

Dan Greenberg, an English teacher at Southview High School in Sylvania, was instrumental in starting Northwest Ohio Friends of Public Education. “I just can’t sit by and wring my hands and say, oh, I hope it [the public education crisis] goes away,” he said.

“If we don’t stand up and do something in the public schools in our community, they could be gone, changed to private entities,” Mr. Greenberg said. “I don’t think you can help but get mad or get upset and want to take action if you know the injustices that are being heaped on public education.”

The times, they are a-changing. The tide is turning. The billionaires are in for a big surprise.

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Reform

District in New York Votes to Opt Out of Race to Top

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2013 //
14

At the recommendation of its superintendent, Dr. William M. Donohue, the board of education of the Byram Hills School District in New York unanimously passed a resolution to withdraw from the state’s Race to the Top. Dr. Donohue demonstrated his willingness to think independently, to express his candid views without fear, and to act in the best interest of the students who are in his care. He deserves to be recognized for his integrity and clear thinking. I am happy to add Dr. William M. Donohue to our list of champions of public education.

Here is Dr. Donohue’s recommendation to his board:

Superintendent’s Recommendation Re: Race To The Top (RTTT)

Board of Education Meeting of November 5, 2013

 

 

Race To The Top has been much in the news lately, and the frustrations with how it is being implemented by the Commissioner, Chancellor, and State Education Department are surfacing from the public, much as they already have with school boards and superintendents. The Commissioner’s last two public meetings reflected general dissatisfaction with his initiatives, as was widely reported in the press. 

At the current time, districts in RTTT are required to select a Data Dashboard, which has brought to light concerns about security, especially with regard to what kind of student information is being stored, by whom, and how it is to be used and released to third parties. I attended a meeting on October 24 with the state’s data experts and RTTT administrators that was demanded by 36 of our region’s superintendents. The state officials could not, or would not, answer most of our questions; asking to get back to us. I found they were surprised by the strong stance of superintendents, who view protecting student data as a primary responsibility, and they were somewhat incredulous that security of data is a concern. When they got back to us, the answers were direct and provided helpful information. They also acknowledged that their answers were edited by SED counsel. The bottom line seems to be that student data will go to InBloom, a private data storage company, regardless of participation in RTTT. However, the next phase of RTTT data collection involves providing even more sensitive information, including student discipline records. This is a major concern, and it is not clear if all districts will be required to participate in that phase. It is clear that either the district or the state can unilaterally authorize the data to be released to third parties for various reasons. State officials have privately acknowledged that contracts already exist with commercial enterprises, including Amazon.com.

 

There are other outstanding issues of concern with RTTT, of course, including: excessive testing of students; the rush to implement Common Core and high stakes Common Core based Regents Exams for high school students; the validity of using test scores for teacher evaluations; the micro-management of districts’ teacher and principal evaluation systems; the exclusion of school boards and superintendents from any planning or input; the apparent commercialization of public education at taxpayer’s expense; and the ever-increasing costs of implementation, including computer based testing for every student. It really should be no surprise that by reducing local control, RTTT threatens to make Byram Hills less able to achieve academic excellence, less able to meet our students’ individual needs, less able to select appropriate programs for our students and community, more costly to operate, and ultimately less attractive to home buyers.

 

Given all of the above, I recommend that the Board vote to “opt-out” of our RTTT agreement with the State. I base my recommendation on my immediate practical concern about the upcoming demands for more sensitive information about student data, and the fact that we will have, at best, limited control over how the data is released, mined, and used by others who have no relationship to our students or the school district. Although it is not clear that opting out of RTTT will actually affect our participation, it will send notice to the state that we, like many others, are not satisfied with their security plan. Beyond practical matters, I think it is appropriate that we opt-out of RTTT because we can no longer, in good conscience, be part of such a misguided and poorly executed plan. The recommendation is not without costs, as we will not be eligible for our final payment of about $3,500 from New York’s share of the Race To The Top federal grant. About half of that amount will be made up by expenses we will forgo by not having to implement the data dashboard. Nevertheless, I think it behooves us to assert that we have no confidence in the way the state is implementing Race To The Top, that we view it as counterproductive to our goal of achieving excellence, and that we can no longer be party to it. Let me add that since the superintendents meeting with the state officials, more than twenty districts in our region have reported that they intend to pull out. At least eight others have already pulled out, or never joined. It seems likely that districts on Long Island will soon follow suit. And so, I think our message will be heard, if only for the strength of numbers and for the threat it poses to the state’s plan to apply for a follow-up grant extending its commitment to RTTT. 

 

 

 

Categories Honor Roll, New York, Privacy and Privacy Rights, Race to the Top

How NPE Candidates Fared

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2013 //
6

The Network for Public Education endorsed candidates who strongly support public education, oppose school closings, excessive testing, and privatization. Most of our candidates were underdogs, overwhelmingly outspent. Only Darcie Cimarusti ran unopposed. We are proud of all the candidates who stood up for kids against big corporate money and power. We congratulate them for their courage and tenacity.

Posted by Robert Perry
22 hours ago

The candidates endorsed by NPE are:

Lost Culver City School Board, CA
Claudia Vizcarra

El Rancho School Board, CA
Won José Lara

South Pasadena School Board, CA
Lost Suzie Abajian

Denver Public Schools Board of Education, CO
Lost Rosario C de Baca
Lost Michael Kiley
Lost Roger Kilgore
Lost Meg Schomp

Douglas County School Board, CO
Lost Bill Hodges
Lost Ronda Scholting

Bridgeport School Board, CT
Won Howard Gardner
Won Andre Baker
Won Dave Hennessey

Atlanta School Board, GA
Run Off Cynthia Briscoe Brown
Lost Ed Johnson
Run Off Mary Palmer
Lost Nisha Simama

Highland Park Board of Education, NJ
Won Darcie Cimarusti

State Assembly, NJ
Lost Marie Corfield

Centennial School District School Board, PA
Win Michael Hartline
Win Betty Huf
Win Jane Schrader Lynch

Tabernacle School Board, PA
Win John Bulina

Houston Board of Education, TX
Lost Anne Sung

Seattle School Board, WA
Won Sue Peters

Categories Network for Public Education

Failure and Lobbying and Profits: The $$$ World of NCLB Tutoring Industry

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2013 //
14

Want to know why spending on public education has mushroomed?

Look no farther than the booming education industry that federal dollars have created through No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, are siphoned away from schools to pay for consultants and services that have no track record but promise the moon. Private contractors will train your teachers, train your leaders, create teacher evaluation systems, sell you new technology, turn your school around with minimal or maximal pain, your choice.

As soon as Congress opens the door to the education industry, the industry returns the favor with lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Our tax dollars at work!!! Al the while, class sizes grow larger, the arts are eliminated, and basic needs go unmet because “we can’t afford it.”

Consider NCLB’s requirement that low-scoring students must receive tutoring. A sound idea, no? Unfortunately, it encouraged the creation of thousands of inexperienced, incompetent tutoring companies that recruited students by promising rewards to students or principals. The results: Nil.

Consider this story from the Texas Tribune, republished in the New York Times:

“Under the No Child Left Behind tutoring program, underperforming schools had to set aside a portion of the federal financing they received for economically disadvantaged students to get outside tutoring. In Texas, with minimal quality control at the state level, it resulted in millions of dollars in public money going to companies that at best showed little evidence of their services’ academic benefit, and at worst committed outright fraud.

“The program has been suspended in Texas, as the state secured a waiver from the federal law’s requirements last month. Education officials have said that, for now, there are no plans to continue the program at the state level.

“But as No Child Left Behind awaits Congressional reauthorization, the tutoring industry is energetically pushing federal policy makers to preserve public financing for tutoring, either in the updated law or other legislation — lobbying efforts expected to be duplicated at the state level in Texas, where over the years tutoring companies have cultivated powerful political ties.

“I have no doubt that the next legislative session, they will lobby for this way of spending dollars to be decided in Austin instead of the neighborhood school level, and I think that would be a real disservice,” said State Representative Mike Villarreal, a San Antonio Democrat who passed legislation during the 2013 session tightening regulations on the federal tutoring program.

“The law resulted in a booming industry that created an unprecedented role for commercial tutoring companies in public education. At the time, the program’s proponents said such private-sector involvement would fuel innovation in public schools while offering top-notch instruction to students who needed it.

“Instead, it flopped, bringing years of complaints from school districts, which detailed practices like the use of incentives like iPads to recruit students into programs as well as significant concerns about instructional methods and falsified invoices.”

But the lucrative tutoring industry will not let failure for kids get in the way of profit, no-sir-see!

Here is more:

“Texas has taken a “shortsighted, irresponsible approach,” Stephanie Monroe, a former assistant secretary for education in the United States Office for Civil Rights, wrote in a letter to the editor published in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram in response to The Texas Tribune’s series on the program.

“Without the tutoring program, Ms. Monroe said, the state’s poorest students will “no longer have access to the services they need to succeed and otherwise are unable to afford.”

“She said her organization acknowledges that stronger oversight of tutoring services is needed. But Ms. Monroe, who left her government post in 2009 to found a lobbying firm, added that “allowing states like Texas to arbitrarily eliminate them altogether due to a few bad actors is just reckless public policy.”

“Tutor Our Children, which describes itself as a group dedicated to preserving free tutoring for economically disadvantaged students, has spent almost $900,000 in federal lobbying expenses, including on contracts with Ms. Monroe, since it began in 2010. An additional $500,000 has gone to marketing, public relations and fund-raising costs, according to the organization’s tax filings.”

The lobbying was intense in the governor’s office and the legislature:

“In the last two years, the company has spent an estimated minimum of $240,000 on lobbying teams in Austin and Washington. The company’s founder, Charles Young, has given more than $140,000 in political contributions to state Republican lawmakers, including $20,000 to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and $26,000 to Mr. Perry.

“Mr. Young served on a 2013 Texas Education Agency committee that developed recommendations for the state’s school accountability system — a panel that also included Sandy Kress, a former Bush education adviser who has lobbied for Tutors With Computers. The company’s own advisory board has included Rod Paige, the former United States secretary of education and Houston Independent School District superintendent, who helped put No Child Left Behind into place.”

This is called “leaving no child behind,” or “students first,” that is, as long as there are federal dollars attached.

Categories Education Industry, For-Profit, NCLB (No Child Left Behind)

Election Updates

By dianeravitch
November 6, 2013 //
30

The election yesterday produced mixed results for supporters of public education. We won some, we lost some. This is big progress. A few years ago, it appeared that the corporate reform crowd would have a free hand and would be able to buy school board seats wherever they chose.

As usual, a number of contests were showered with big money from corporate reformers. The Network for Public Education endorsed candidates who support public education. Of course, NPE was unable to match the spending of the corporate reformers; we don’t have any money, just the ability to give moral support and to help voters recognize which candidates really are trying to improve public education and which are flying under a false banner of “reform.”

Not all the results are definitive, but here are some updates.

All three of the candidates we endorsed for the Bridgeport Board of Education were elected. That means that the board will no longer be controlled by Mayor Finch and Governor Malloy. The people of Bridgeport have spoken, and they want something better for their children than the corporate reform agenda. Presumably, Paul Vallas will collect a sizable severance and move on to another district.

Bill de Blasio won a sweeping mandate in New York City, running in opposition to the Bloomberg legacy of closing schools and opening charters. NPE was not involved in this race, but I personally endorsed de Blasio the day after the city’s newspapers endorsed the candidate likeliest to carry on the Bloomberg policies. At the time, he was running in third or fourth place, so I am especially pleased that he won, because he promises to reverse some of Bloomberg’s most anti-public school policies.

Sue Peters, running for school board in Seattle against a heavily funded opponent, was holding a three-point lead in the early returns. Her opponent raised about $100,000 and was supported by a PAC that gave her about $100,000. Sue raised a bit more than $30,000. If she ultimately wins, it will encourage all of us who believe that democracy beats plutocracy, that ordinary citizens can overcome the power of big money.

The Denver slate endorsed by NPE–outspent 5-1–lost. This was a shame, because it keeps in place the corporatist group that has controlled Denver public schools for nine years with no evidence of any improvement. In Denver, the failed status quo won, buoyed by big money.

Perhaps most disappointing was the victory of the corporatists in Douglas County, Colorado. Again, they had the power of money, but the policies they espouse are toxic for public education and children. They brought in all the big guns on the rightwing side, including Jeb Bush, Bill Bennett, and Koch brothers funding, and that was enough to carry them to victory in the school board race. So Douglas County will once again have a public school board dedicated to the dissolution of public schools.

Marty Walsh was elected mayor of Boston. NPE took no position, since both Walsh and his opponent John Connolly support charter schools. But Walsh had labor support, and Connolly was supported by hedge fund guys at Democrats for Education Reform and the notorious Stand for Children, which can be counted on to support the candidate who is most hostile to public schools. At least DFER and Stand didn’t win.

The wonderful and valiant Marie Corfield, a teacher, was defeated in her effort to win a seat in the New Jersey Assembly. NPE endorsed her, and we were especially sorry to see her lose, because New Jersey needs someone to speak up for its great public education system, someone who will stand up to the big bully Chris Christie. The national Democratic party abandoned Christie’s opponent, the well-qualified Barbara Buono, thus elevating Christie as a candidate for President in 2016. Can you imagine this man, who revels in insulting people and wagging his finger at their face, negotiating with world leaders?

In Atlanta, we endorsed four candidates. Two of our candidates–Mary Palmer and Cynthia Brown–will be in runoffs. The mayor, Kasim Reed, endorsed his own slate and raised big money for them. Once again, our candidates were outspent, and we are proud of them for supporting public education.

Given the enormous financial advantage held by the corporatists, it is startling and exciting when supporters of public education win elections these days. I have no doubt that as the public becomes better informed about the privatization agenda of the corporatists, their money advantage will matter less and less, except to the extent that they use their money to befuddle the public about their true intentions.

Categories Education Reform

The de Blasio Mandate for Education

By dianeravitch
November 6, 2013 //
52

The de Blasio Mandate for Education

 

The election of Bill de Blasio represents a major national setback for the agenda shared not only by Mayor Bloomberg, but by George W. Bush, Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange), the Koch brothers and many others. What they had in common was that they had the gall to call themselves “reformers” as they determined to replace public education with a choice system that gave preference to privatized management over democratic governance.

Make no mistake: In New York City, the drive to privatize public education has ground to a halt with de Blasio’s election.

Bill de Blasio now has the opportunity to provide national leadership to the growing movement to rebuild and strengthen public education as a fundamental institution in our democratic society. He can make clear that the past decade of relying on testing and punishment has failed and that wise policy can restore the public schools as agencies of social progress.

De Blasio understands the failure of the Bloomberg education policies. Not only were his own children students in New York City’s public schools (one is now in high school, the other in college), but he was a member of a local school board. He knows better than most, how authoritarian the mayor was, and how indifferent he was to the concerns of parents and communities. De Blasio understands that decisions about the fate of schools should not be made arbitrarily and capriciously by one man, but only after the most earnest deliberation with those most directly affected: students, parents, educators, and the local community.

De Blasio must restore trust in public education in New York City, which Bloomberg eroded. The public school system enrolls 1.1 million students, and New Yorkers made clear in this election that they want a mayor who intends to make it work better for all children, not demean and destroy it. For a dozen years, we have had a mayor whose main message was that charter schools—the schools outside his control—were far, far superior to the schools for which he was directly responsible. He looked down on the public schools that enrolled 94% of all students, and by word and deed, sought to undermine public confidence in them.

Bloomberg did his best to destroy neighborhood schools and turn all schools into schools of choice. De Blasio must reverse that policy. He should restore neighborhood schools and the sense of community that builds strong schools and strong communities. Where Bloomberg sought to eliminate the school system and make every school into an autonomous unit, responsible for nothing more than test score data, de Blasio must rebuild the school system so that every school has competent oversight and supervision.

How does a new mayor go about rebuilding a school system that has gone through a dozen years of being the target of a wrecking ball?

First, he must restore the contiguous community school districts, each of which has a superintendent to oversee the condition and progress of the schools. In a de Blasio administration, there should be neighborhood elementary schools, neighborhood middle schools, and neighborhood high schools. There should be a district office where parents can go and get an answer if they have problems, rather than trying to penetrate the secluded, indifferent, and distant bureaucracy that Bloomberg created.

Second, the restoration of neighborhood schools would eliminate the byzantine “choice” process that Bloomberg initiated, whereby parents of children applying to middle school and high school visited schools, listed a dozen choices, and hoped for the best. Choosing a middle school should not be as difficult and complicated as applying to college. Every parent should be able to count on admission to a neighborhood school. At the same time, de Blasio should retain the specialized high schools that students want to attend, even if they must leave their neighborhood. In a city as big as New York City, there is room for both neighborhood schools and a limited number of schools that students choose, like the Bronx High School of Science, Stuyvesant High School, and Brooklyn Tech (where de Blasio’s son Dante is a student).

Third, de Blasio should assemble a team of expert educators—recruited from the ranks of the city’s most respected retired educators—who will take on a double assignment. First, they should review the quality of every principal in the system because many who were appointed by Bloomberg had minimal experience as educators. Second, his council of expert evaluators should create a regular inspection process to visit every struggling school and devise an action plan to provide the help it needs for the children it serves.

Fourth, de Blasio should follow through on his campaign promise to set higher expectations for the city’s charter sector. The policy of co-location does not work. Instead, it has created a system of separate and unequal schools housed in the same building. Charter schools that are munificently funded (and that pay their executives munificent salaries, far more than the chancellor of the entire city school system) should pay rent for using public space, as the law requires. Charter schools should be expected to enroll the same population as neighborhood schools, with the same proportions of students who are English learners and the same proportions of students with disabilities (accepting students with all kinds of disabilities, not just those with the least challenging ones, as they now do). Charters should be expected to collaborate, not compete, with the city’s public schools.

Fifth, and far from last, the new mayor should de-emphasize testing and accountability. We have learned again and again that students with the greatest needs get the lowest test scores. The mayor should eliminate Bloomberg’s flawed accountability system, whose sole purpose seems to be to set up schools for closure and privatization. Most testing should be done by teachers, who know what they have taught and can use test results to learn quickly what students need and how to give them support. It would be a breath of fresh air if the mayor announced a three-year moratorium on Common Core testing while the city is restoring integrity to a badly damaged school system.

The most immediate goal of Mayor Bill de Blasio is to select a chancellor who agrees with his vision of rebuilding the New York City public school system. This should be an experienced educator who shares the mayor’s view that the needs of children really do come first and that data are far less important than the restoration of respect for learning, respect for educators, and the realization that a new day has dawned for public education in New York City.

Categories New York City
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »