This article was written by an independent education researcher who requests anonymity. It is unfortunate that the politics of education have become so intermingled with powerful forces that researchers remain silent or hide their identities to escape retribution. In this case, everything in this article is carefully documented.
Lessons Learned:
How the Nation’s Most Powerful Mayor Lost His First Battle Against Corporate Interests and How He Can Win the War
Mayor Bill de Blasio has lost his first battle against the status quo corporate education reform policy machine. In attempting to lessen the influence of charter schools, which often comes at the expense of public schools, he made a number of key tactical errors. This led to the passage of a new law in New York State that now forces New York City to either co-locate every new charter school or pay for its rent in private space. De Blasio was also forced to overturn his decision not to co-locate three Success Academy schools. A review of the tactical errors made can serve as a roadmap for future policy changes that will benefit all of New York City’s children.
Be transparent, and engage communities. Prior to leaving office Mayor Bloomberg had the Panel for Educational Policy vote and approve of over 40 co-locations including 17 charter co-locations. Historically these votes were held in March, but they were moved up to October in order to force de Blasio’s hand. Upon entering office de Blasio should have immediately begun a transparent process of re-evaluating these decisions. Instead he delayed addressing the situation and when he did a single employee at the NYC Department of Education (and former de Blasio deputy at the public advocate’s office) seems to have been primarily responsible for the reviews. Future policy changes should follow a clear process with open avenues of community and stakeholder input.
Be bold. Universal Pre-K is a bold move. But policy changes must not stop there. Instead of deciding to overturn only three co-locations, which left him vulnerable to accusations of a personal vendetta, de Blasio should have stopped every single one that did not meet community needs. Instead of stacking a new space-sharing committee with charter supporters de Blasio should assign them seats based on number of students served (6%) rather than number of dollars in the bank accounts of their backers. A lack of boldness and a reluctance to make waves has also interfered with attempts to re-organize Tweed (the NYC DOE’s headquarters). Besides the departure of a sole deputy Chancellor all the officials in Bloomberg’s DOE are holding onto their positions. This may explain why, as of yet, there have been no changes to the test-centered promotion policy, no changes to test-centered school accountability metrics, and no changes to the test-centered teacher evaluation system. Without significant changes to the ranks of central office managers, progressive educational reforms will have no chance of success.
Communicate the values, figures, and facts used in making policy decisions. Bloomberg was a master at this. He used numbers to bludgeon opponents into submission. Although careful analysis and review of the data showed that many of the numbers were false, the charts in the powerpoints at every press conference lulled the media. In the empty space created by the lack of communication on the part of de Blasio’s City Hall, others stepped in to address some of the falsehoods that de Blasio’s political adversaries were spreading. Eva Moskowitz, the $475,000 CEO of Success Academy, was the loudest and boldest of the de Blasio attackers. Her claims, made on national television, were debunked, but not by City Hall.
We know that countering lies with the truth works because Success Academy has recently changed its multi-million dollar political advertising campaign. They no longer claim to have the highest 5th grade math test scores in New York State. They now claim to have a school with the highest 5th grade math test scores in Harlem. Even this claim does not pass the smell test. There are 32 school districts in New York City. Out of those 32 districts Harlem is but one neighborhood (not even a full district). There are four Success Academy schools in Harlem. Out of those four schools we are asked to focus on a single one. There are three elementary grade levels where students are tested. Of those three grade levels we are asked to pay attention to only one. There are two main subjects in which students are tested, English and Math. Again we are asked to consider only one. The data in fact show that even on this narrow view there are four schools in Queens and four schools in Manhattan that have higher average 5th grade math state test scores than this Success Academy school. And they got these scores without kicking out 50% of their students as Success Academy does.
As de Blasio comes to terms with the constraints that the New York State Legislature recently imposed on his decision-making around charters, he must not accept defeat. He must initiate a conversation about the practices of the charter sector in New York City. He must use his bully pulpit and ask the legislature to address the questions that charter school advocates refuse to confront.
*How will charter schools be held accountable for suspending large numbers of students leading to those students leaving the school?
* How will charter schools be mandated to stop their selective attrition approach whereby they keep the high-performing students and kick out the low-performing students (making comparisons to schools with natural patterns of attrition unfair)?
*How will charter schools be forced to address their unwillingness to accept the neediest students?
*How will charter schools be subject to basic oversight regulations going forward (such as the grading of their state exams by a 3rd party)?
Now is not the time to run and hide. Let’s take advantage of this opportunity to have an honest discussion about the charter sector.
The research cited below can get us started.
http://www.edwize.org/middle-school-charters-suspending-their-way-to-the-top charter schools have high suspension rates and shrinking cohorts of students suggesting that charters suspend and expel challenging students and as a result their test scores increase.
http://www.edwize.org/new-charter-report-improves-transparency-but-leaves-many-questions-unanswered reviews data from “state of the sector” report on NYC charter schools. Charter schools in NYC serve a less needy student population (fewer ELL students, fewer students with disabilities, fewer students in poverty), have higher teacher and principal turnover, and have declining middle school enrollments.
http://www.edwize.org/asking-hard-questions-about-what-works Harlem Success and Harlem Village charter schools serve more privileged student body than the district in which they are located and have very high (up to 68%) attrition rates
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15582159.2011.548242?journalCode=wjsc20 “Using 3 recent years of data from the New York State School Report Cards and analyzing the charter population at the school level, the authors found that English language learners are consistently underrepresented in charter school populations across 3 academic years.”
http://www.edwize.org/new-study-confirms-uft-report%E2%80%99s-findings-on-ells-in-charters reviews above study. Points to some issues (such as including less than reliable high school data) with their finding that charters serve a proportionate number of free-lunch students
http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/still-searching-for-miracle-schools-and-superguy-updates-on-houston-and-new-york-city/ finds that charter schools in NYC serve a more privileged student population, spend more money per student, and have smaller class sizes.
http://www.uft.org/files/attachments/uft-report-2010-01-separate-and-unequal.pdf UFT study finding that NYC Charters ”serve significantly fewer than the average of the City’s poorest children, and 10 to 25 percent fewer of such children in the charters’ own neighborhoods. Charters serve on average less than four percent of English Language Learners (“ELL”), rather than 14 percent of such children in the City’s district public schools (the “district schools”). Less than 10 percent of charter pupils are categorized as special education students versus a citywide average of more than 16 percent in the district public schools. In addition, despite their concentrations in highly diverse neighborhoods, charters as a group admit substantially fewer Hispanic and/or immigrant students. As a result, charters contain a heavier concentration of African-American students than is true in the City as a whole or even in the neighborhoods charters are supposed to serve.” Also raises questions about the financial practices and “outsize “management fees”” and the transparency of charter schools.
http://www.uft.org/files/attachments/uft-report-2010-04-special-ed-in-charters.pdf UFT study finding that NYC charter schools do not serve the same percent of students with disabilities as non-charter schools and serve significantly fewer of the higher need students with disabilities.
https://dianeravitch.net/2012/12/03/reader-calls-out-ny-daily-news-for-charter-spin-2/ Daily News story claiming that charter schools serve same students as public schools in districts 7 and 23 is false. There are in fact 500% fewer high needs special education students, 50% fewer ELLs in charter schools.
https://dianeravitch.net/2012/12/20/inflated-claims-of-charter-success-in-nyc/ KIPP has fewer of the highest need special education students although the media claims otherwise
http://www.edwize.org/rhode-island-charter-board-to-seth-andrew-you%e2%80%99re-fired compares Democracy Prep Charter School to co-located district schools and finds that the charter schools serves over 30% fewer students with disabilities with self-contained special education students and fewer students eligible for free lunch.
http://www.edwize.org/at-charters-struggling-students-vanish-as-scores-rise#more-7161 it seems likely based on the data that charter schools are removing students from testing cohorts and that might account for some of their test outcomes
http://www.edwize.org/the-anatomy-of-a-cover-up-the-nyc-department-of-education-and-special-education-in-charter-schools#more-6932 claims that the New York City Department of Education attempted to conceal information that should be available to the public regarding the numbers of students with disabilities served by charter schools. And “is failing to provide the most minimal oversight of the education of students with special needs in NYC charter schools.”
http://www.edwize.org/charter-schools-and-special-ed-eva-moskowitz-gets-defensive#more-6890 links to data on characteristics of students served by NYC charter schools. Notes that “virtually none of the information available for district schools is also available for charter schools” on schools’ public web pages.”
http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2012/06/12/it-takes-a-village/ looks at the performance of the Harlem Village Academy Charter School. Finds that “In 2010-2011, HVA had 55% free lunch and 13% reduced lunch. The district, that year, had 74% free with 5% reduced. In 2010-2011, HVA had 3% LEP vs. 11% for the whole district. In 2010-2011 38% of the students at HVA were suspended for at least one day while 7% were suspended for the whole district. Student attrition at HVA is huge. For example, the 66 5th graders in 2007-2008 have shrunk to just 16 9th graders in the 2010-2011 school year. This is a 75% attrition. In that same time, the district that the school is in went from 904 5th graders in 2007-2008 to 1313 9th graders in 2010-2011. That is a 45% growth.” Also notes “staff turnover was 2007-2008 53%, for 2008-2009, 38%, and for 2009-2010, a whopping 61%. By comparison, the teacher attrition for the entire district in 2009-2010 was just 19%.” Not a single student took the New York Sate Trigonometry exam.
http://miracleschools.wikispaces.com/Harlem+Village+Academy%2C+NY%2C+NY more on Harlem Village Academy Charter School.
http://www.edwize.org/charter-vs-district-student-demographics-beyond-the-lotteries cites research showing that charter schools do not educate the same type of students as district schools. For example, KIPP charter schools in NYC serve fewer poor students than the district middle schools.
http://miracleschools.wikispaces.com/KIPP+Academy+New+York tracks high attrition rate in NYC KIPP school.
http://www.edwize.org/joel-klein-turns-a-blind-eye-to-his-own-data-on-charters-and-test-scores “58% of district schools got an A or a B in 2010, compared to only 34% of charters. In Districts 4 and 5 in Harlem, more than half of district schools got either an A or B (27 out of 53), compared to only 8 out of the 21 charters in those neighborhoods.” “Based on the data charters reported to the state last year, the city-wide difference in poverty between charters and district schools almost doubled — from 2.5 percentage points in 2008-09 to 4.3 percentage points in 2009-10. In addition, poverty at public schools rose 2 percentage points from 2008-09 to 2009-10, while at charters the increase was only a tenth of one percent. Across the city, 15 percent of district students were English Language Learners, while in charters, English Language Learners made up only 5 percent of students.”
http://gothamschools.org/2009/02/17/toward-a-new-definition-of-creaming/#more-9646 discusses evidence of creaming at Democracy Prep charter school at both the initial application stage and later on as students are dropped from the school’s roster.
http://school-stories.org/2012/05/pushed-out-charter-schools-contribute-to-the-citys-growing-suspension-rates/ “no excuses” charter schools have very high suspension rates which, in some cases, violates legal regulations.
http://www.edwize.org/democracy-prep-and-the-same-kids-myth the populations of Democracy Prep Charter School and its co-located public show that their populations are dramatically different with the charter school having fewer poor, limited English proficient and special education students
http://www.edwize.org/middle-school-charters-show-alarming-student-attrition average attrition rate for charter middle schools examined is 23% between 5th and 8th grades. Students appear to be removed from the school rather than being left back a grade. As students are removed from cohort proficiency on state exams goes up.
http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/what-do-the-available-data-tell-us-about-nyc-charter-school-teachers-their-jobs/ an examination of charter school data shows that they “have smaller classes… spend much more than surrounding district schools … serve much less needy student populations than surrounding district schools… have 4th grade students with relatively “average” to below average scale score outcomes compared to schools serving similar population… in some cases, have 8th grade students with high average scale score outcomes compared to schools serving similar populations… where data were available, have value-added scores which vary from the citywide average in both directions, with KIPP being the lowest and Uncommon schools the highest (in the aggregate). Notably, Uncommon Schools also have consistently smaller class sizes and the fewest low income students.”
http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2010/06/new-kipp-study-underestimates-attrition-effects-0 study of KIPP doesn’t fully account for high attrition rates at KIPP middle schools and other external factors that influence student outcomes.
http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/zip-it-charters-and-economic-status-by-zip-code-in-ny-and-nj/ demographic comparison showing that KIPP middle schools in NYC have fewer poor students than other district middle schools.
http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/upperhalf/ charters in NYC have fewer poor students and fewer English Language Learners than district schools.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
There are some good points in this. Particularly about the ridiculous “process” BDB used to revisit the October 2013 co-location decisions.
But boy, that is a *lot* of links to edwize.
LikeLike
Wow – thanks. I’ve read all of these, but it is good to have them all here in the same place to reread and reference.
LikeLike
“that the politics of education have become so intermingled with powerful forces that researchers remain silent or hide their identities to escape retribution”
yes.
LikeLike
This is where teachers are left sort of scrambling, particularly if they do not keep up with the politics in detail.
They might attend professional development presented by a company that is equally tied in with “powerful forces,” and come running back to their buildings ready to change everything in the wake of the anxiety and anger that the corporate and privatization movements have triggered, not realizing that the professional development they just attended was sponsored by some of the forces behind charters and privatization. Indeed, I witness emotion in my public school building that strikes me as beyond the understanding of those who are experiencing it IF they do not read up on the various forces swirling around, based on things they say (read: contracts signed with companies that change the face of what teachers do). They often come at a conversation as if the old ways are still here, when in fact they are not. We have a new sheriff in town, and some folks are still only now realizing that. They feel motivated to “market” and focus public school theme, like magnets would, in order to “retain and attract students.” I used to think this is what was required of us, and I still do, sort of. . .but in a more subtle way. In a way that sets a public school apart as superb DESPITE the privatization going on around. That is to say, we should carry on being our best as if nobody is taunting us. . .and to show strength and not cower while it is trendy to kick public schools. (And to meanwhile fight for saving public schools. . .but not by the rules that privatizers set forth. . .but by our own rules, that respect democracy and individuals and the worth of the teaching profession).
LikeLike
Excellent, thank you, good analysis and good links for us but especially for Mayor and his directionless BOE if they will pay attention. Who has the authority to get the Mayor’s attention? I earlier proposed we ourselves finance one tough and well-informed TV ad to undermine Eva’s claims; frustrated as I am, I raise my original pledge to $1000 as a tiny seed to get our big network to finance the rest. A grand is chicken-feed in this Wall St money war, but our large numbers mean we can raise enough to show the Mayor how he should fight back. The UPKNY commercials with Chirlaine McCray now on TV are wimpy and sappy non-responses to the bold take-no-prisoners of Eva’s TV ads demonizing the Mayor. We in NPE, BATs, Opt-Out, Rethinking Schools, FAIRTEST, Class Size Matters, etc., are rich in knowledge, but knowledge is power only for those with the power to use knowledge to change things. The critique above is smart, informed, and unsentimental, and the links are deep–how do we act on this knowledge to get the Mayor to act with courage and authority on behalf of the public sector?
LikeLike
Frankly, corporate interests are going to beat progressives every time in every way until we can get bodies (millions of them) in the street. The only thing corporate interests respond to is fear and what they fear most is revolution.
LikeLike
AGREED! I propose, for a start, a complete stop shopping for all educators and any parents we can get to join us (definitely stop shopping at Walmart). If we start digging our heels in, at least with our spending dollars, they will start to actually feel just how many of us there are. Just buy the basics, food, clothes…try to reuse and recycle (buy used). it will give them a taste of what they are in for if all these polities they want go through. We won’t have any money, we won’t have any pensions, we won’t be able to buy their precious crap (not like we can now, anyway, hence the reason they are so desperate to get at our tax dollars though education). We do have power in numbers, we need to get our heads out of the sand and start looking around…this isn’t just happening in the big cities!
LikeLike
I put this up at Oped,
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/How-Corporate-Interests-Be-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Battle_Corporate_Corporate-Profits_Corporate-Welfare-140417-821.html
I added the comment below, and copied all the links from the article.
Thanks to the research that Diane does, she linked in the article sites and article where the truth about charter schools can be found; I am copying them here so you can go there and discover what the media will not tell you, and you can send this to people whom you know are trying to grasp the truth of charter schools:
“Now is not the time to run and hide. Let’s take advantage of this opportunity to have an honest discussion about the charter sector.The research cited below can get us started.”
(those wonderful links are next. Thanks Diane!)
LikeLike
You are so devoted to your mission!!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on and commented:
Excellent piece, and you’re right, it’s a shame it has to be written anonymously.
LikeLike
This is sort of hopeful, though. A lot of Bloomberg’s privatizers are heading off to greener pastures in the private sector ed reform world.
http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2014/04/16/more-dept-of-education-top-brass-leave-as-farina-asserts-her-vision-for-public-education/
LikeLike
But plenty of them are staying, too, as are signature Bloomberg policies such as Fair Student Funding, a measure that effectively penalizes schools for having experienced teachers, and the useless network system. On many fundamental levels, very little has changed in the day-to-day operations of the DOE.
The anonymous author provides a good read of the charter landscape in New York, but the reason de Blasio lost the battle is almost entirely due to bungled public relations. The person who was going to head up his PR push had to step down before BDB took office because she decided to date a disgraced ex-governor nearly twice her age. Her lousy judgment on that aside, by all accounts, she was extremely well-connected and very good at her job, and whoever de Blasio chose to replace her seems not to be.
LikeLike
It is amazing how a greedy governor overrode someone in his own party. Why de Blasio stop fighting? He should be constantly putting out reports about the exact findings reported above. Charters have waged a war full of lies. They say the same lies over and over again. Wouldn’t it be great to produce a commercial debunking all of Eva’s claims. Feature her and Cuomo in the same commercial. Why couldn’t the unions do this? Don’t they have the money? It seems like deBlasio is becoming a shrinking violet when he should be swinging back. I still can’t believe they approved the other charters before the war broke out.
LikeLike
I think he probably needs to clean out the DOE first. You can hardly expect Bloomberg’s syncophants to make commercials for de Blasio that he would want to show. I think I would want to be a one term mayor who shook the establishment up. They are not going to let him stay if he doesn’t lick their boots.
LikeLike
http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2014/04/dont-like-charter-schools-move-to-the-midwest.html#.U1BOHeZdVH0
This is a map of charter schools. Look at this map and then look at the media coverage, punditry and lawmaker focus on charter schools and tell me public school haven’t been abandoned.
You know, our lawmakers have a duty to work for these schools and these students.
Whatever their preference, which is quite clearly charter schools, they signed onto “public schools” and they are paid to IMPROVE public schools. Not close them. Not seat think tanks and assemble thought leaders to trash and discredit them and plan ways to “unwind” the public school system or come up with “governance models” for privatized districts.
I don’t remember having an election or debate on whether we wanted to privatize the public school system. I don’t remember that election because it never happened.
That isn’t how ed reform was sold to the public and that isn’t what they were hired to do.
LikeLike
I fear charters are here to stay. People have embraced them and seemed totally uninterested when certain aspects are pointed out to them, I hope these same people don’t make demands years from now when the truth is impossible to ignore.
Why aren’t parents paying closer attention? In my area, for-profits are moving in and people are running to them. It seems as though some people do more thorough research when deciding which camera to buy than researching their charter school. At some point, the parent has to take responsibility.
LikeLike
Charters are here to stay, as are magnet schools that have admissions tests screening out the vast majority of students. NYC has one of the nation’s most extensive systems of magnet schools screening out youngsters who can’t pass the admissions tests.
DiBasio knows a lot about this because his family has used one.
But the un-named person who raises concerns ignores these schools, as do many who criticize charters.
One of the reasons we have a charter movement is that many progressive educators and low income families were deeply frustrated by a 2 or 3 tier system that magnets had created.
There are some great urban district schools and in many cases the people who work in them are not happy about the magnet schools that screen out kids. But that view is rarely represented here.
LikeLike
And we are not likely to discuss magnet schools as they are public schools. Right now we are trying to preserve the public school system. Charter schools are draining already scarce resources from the public school system and contributing to the privatization of education. That is a discussion for after we have stopped the assault on public schools. As you know, Joe, there is a wide range of opinion on magnet schools, but discussing them now would be a diversion from the main focus.
LikeLike
We should also remember to raise these questions with the politicians in Albany that made this ridiculous deal. Charter schools are increasingly simply private for profit businesses that are subsidized by our tax dollars.
Also, the real story of smaller public schools and schools within schools goes back to Deborah Mier and Tony Alverado who implemented both changes in District 3 in East Harlem. That happened thirty years ago but was opposed by the powers on Livingston street and led to Alverdado getting ambushed when he was being considered for Chancellor. It might have stemmed from the fact that Central Park East was a truly integrated school, not a model the mayors office was interested in promoting.
LikeLike