Leonie Haimson, CEO of Class Size Matters (and a dear friend), is voting YES on Proposition 3 in New York, the “Smart Schools Bond Act.”
I am voting no. I expect that the bulk of the money will be used to buy the devices and technology needed for Common Core testing. Leonie and I agree that bond money should not be used to buy devices that have a useful life of 3-4 years.
Leonie says that districts will be able to decide how they want to use the money. She believes New York City will use most of the money to build new schools and replace “temporary” trailers.
New York City schools, she points out, are badly overcrowded, and this new money would provide an opportunity to increase capacity and reduce class sizes.
She writes:
Each school district can use the revenue in the following ways:
· Purchasing educational technology equipment and facilities, such as interactive whiteboards, computer servers, desktop and laptop computers, tablets and high-speed broadband or wireless internet.
· Constructing and modernizing facilities to accommodate pre-kindergarten programs and replacing classroom trailers with permanent instructional space.
· Installing high-tech security features in school buildings.
While I and many other education advocates including Diane Ravitch are fervently opposed to using any bond revenue for the purchase of devices like laptops or tablets that have a useful lifetime of only a few years, as the interest on the bond act is repaid over twenty or thirty years, it is clear that districts will have the choice of how to use these funds and have a broad array of options.
New York City is due to receive about $780 million if Proposition 3 is approved. The Department of Education’s five year capital plan makes it clear that if the bond act passes, $490 million of city funds previously directed toward technology would now be diverted toward building more schools to alleviate overcrowding for smaller classes, creating 4,900 more seats, and the rest toward creating 2,100 seats for pre-kindergarten.
As the analysis in our report Space Crunch makes clear, the city’s school capital plan is badly underfunded as is. Though it will includes less than 40,000 additional seats if the Bond Act is approved – and even fewer if it isn’t – the real need is at least 100,000 seats, given existing overcrowding and projections of increased enrollment over the next five to ten years.
So, voters in New York. You can vote “yes,” as Leonie Haimson advises, if you believe that the money will be spent to add new classrooms and reduce class size. Or you can vote no, as I will, if you believe the money will end up paying for iPads, tablets, and other technology that will be obsolete long before the bonds are paid off. If the measure passes, I hope that Leonie is right.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I will vote NO and continue to push for NY government to give back adequate funding they’ve taken away through the Gap Elimination Adjustment. This has “taken back” BILLIONS of dollars of public education funding which could be used to pay for facilities, technology, teachers, programs, security and books. It’s absurd that Cuomo and the Legislature have systematically reduced their obligated education aid and now are offering us a loan. The GEA is the silent diversion that no politician wants to talk about. It balances the state budget, allows for tax rates for hedge fund managers to stay low, while taking money away from schools and kids.
Tell Cuomo to keep his loan and eliminate the GEA. We don’t need to borrow.
LikeLike
OMG! How can educators leader can be naive and foolish in voting YES to a written sentence /phrase like
Each school district can use the revenue in the following ways
“Purchasing educational technology equipment and facilities, such as interactive whiteboards, computer servers, desktop and laptop computers, tablets and high-speed broadband or wireless internet.”
It is like the part of “N” or “O”, which educator leader does not understand.
NO means NO
Your belief is “not” MY COMMAND, that is how BIG BAD WOLVES will laugh heartily and do whatever a written agreement BY LAW is allowable without any need to twist or conflict.
Dr. Ravitch, oh please, please, this is beyond my comprehension! sigh. Back2basic
LikeLike
I have been trying to find out more about this bill for weeks, and still am not sure how to vote. The supporters of this bill have done virtually no promotion of it in Upstate, which makes me suspicious. It makes me feel like they believe voters will say “Smart Schools? Well, of course I’m for that.” and vote for it.
I am very unclear on how it will really work, which is why I am probably going to vote against it, though Haimson makes a good argument. We have gone through many renovations and new builds in our District lately, and the reimbursement from the State is pretty decent. I don’t understand how this bill will help with taking away trailers, etc. from what is already there. Can this money be used as the District contribution towards renovations and new builds? Or will the fact that this money is available mean there will be an eventual reduction in state aid for building because this money is there?
It does state that the Commissioner has to approve how districts use funds, which doesn’t sit well with me given recent actions by NYSED .
I am very confused about how to vote tomorrow.
LikeLike
“…it is clear that districts will have the choice of how to use these funds and have a broad array of options.”
Is it clear? Not to me. It looks to me like there are three options (the third of which is absolutely chilling), but who, exactly, is going to be making that decision? Will districts really have choice? Or will there be (as usual) top down pressure? What restrictions will there be? What percentage of the money must be spent on each of the three options or will it be entirely at the district’s choice? If the districts choose the first option, do they have the choice of how those “equipment and facilities” will be used, or will it all be in service to testing and test prep?
Far too many questions to say “clearly” about anything, let alone say it three times.
LikeLike
Dienne,
I believe what would be covered by option three would be systems like badge access to doors, buzz-in public access to main entrances during school hours, and internal and parking lot camera systems. These have become increasing common over the last 10-15 years and Sandy Hook accelerated the process. Post-Sandy Hook we literally had parents at each board of education meeting requesting an update on our progress in securing our main entrances with a buzz-in system using cameras and speakers to request entrance.
LikeLike
Hi all educators:
Dienne has suggested an excellent list of percentage or certain portion of fund that goes to certain budget for school maintenance, and improvement.
In dealing with 780 – 900 million of dollars public fund for education, we MUST NOT state that I BELIEVE…, or WE BELIEVE…but we need to carefully agree in writing crystal clear certain percentage of public fund will use to specific task, so that nobody in authority can manipulate, twist, and abuse their privilege to mess up American public fund. Their jail sentence is not worth for American Public Education suffers beyond decades. Back2basic
LikeLike
Districts being allowed to use the money as they choose simply means that they are “free” to follow the idiocy of current conventional “wisdom” on education.
Why in earth should we trust anyone in a position of power over the schools to do the right thing, when they consistently prove they are incapable of doing so?
Vote No!
LikeLike