I invited Leonie Haimson, executive director of ClassSizeMatters, to write about the unfortunate decision by the New York City Department of Education to close P.S. 25 in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. It is one of the most successful schools in the city. It is under enrolled, but the authorities could easily change that by advertising its success or placing additional programs in the building. If and when the school closes, the empty building would then be available for Eva Moskowitz’s charter chain, and the children in the area would no longer have a zoned public school. Did Mayor DeBlasio forget that he campaigned on the promise to support public schools against the voracious expansion of charter schools?
Leonie writes:
On Tuesday, a lawsuit was filed to block the closing of PS 25 Eubie Blake, a small school in the Bed Stuy section of Brooklyn, which by all accounts is a school that is excelling and exceeding expectations, especially given the high-needs students it serves.
Last month, the Panel for Educational Policy voted to approve the closure of ten city schools, most of them struggling schools on the Renewal list. Lost in the media shuffle was the fact that one of these schools, PS 25, wasn’t a low-performing school; far from it.
According to the DOE’s School Performance Dashboard, (according to Chancellor Farina, the “the most advanced tool of its kind,” PS 25 has the fourth highest positive impact of any public elementary school in the city and the second best in the entire borough of Brooklyn, when the need level of its incoming students is taken into account.
According to this metric, the positive impact of PS 25 also exceeds that of any charter school in the city, except for Success Academy Bronx 2, given the fact that most of its students are economically disadvantaged, have disabilities and/or are homeless.
The test scores from PS 25 on the state exams show a sharp upward trajectory, with its students now exceeding the city average in both ELA and math.
In fact, controlling for background and need, the students at PS 25 now outperform similar students by 21 percentage points in both subjects.
Now for those who say test scores aren’t everything, the school also excels according to all other methods the DOE uses to evaluate schools. It exceeds or meets standards in “Effective School Leadership”, “Trust”, “Collaborative Teachers”, “Rigorous Instruction”, “Strong Family-Community Ties” and “Supportive Environment,” according to the school’s Quality Review as well as parent and teacher surveys.
The fact that the DOE is closing a school which is delivering such great results for its students should not have been ignored.
Also unreported by any media outlet were two other salient facts: if PS 25 is closed, the entire city-owned building will be left to a charter school – Success Academy Bed Stuy 3, the first time this has happened in NYC, to my knowledge.
Also ignored was that the Community Education Council District 16 never voted to close this zoned school. State law requires that before this can occur, the CEC must authorize this, as any changes in zoning lines can only happen with their approval. The is one of the main responsibilities of CECs and some would argue their sole veto power over the unilateral and often arbitrary decision-making of the Mayor and the Chancellor.
So why does the Chancellor say PS 25 should be closed? Chancellor Farina argues that the school is under-enrolled. Yet at least five other schools have smaller enrollments than PS 25 and are not being closed. Moreover, DOE has never publicized the fact that this school outperforms nearly every other school in the city. If they had celebrated this school’s accomplishments, surely more parents would apply. The sad reality is that many public schools in D16 have lost enrollment because of the supersaturation of charter schools in the district – a drain on space, funding and resources which will only worsen if this school is closed.
According to the DOE’s controversial school capacity formula, PS 25’s “underenrollment” also means there is sufficient space in the building for its small class sizes of 10 to 18 – which provide ideal learning environments and are likely a major reason for its students’ success. The DOE could also place another preK or a 3K class in the building if they wanted its enrollment to grow.
Currently, PS 25 parents are being shown a list of other schools to apply to, most outside the district and a few schools within — but none will have the same small classes and positive impact on learning, and none of them will their children have the right to attend.
Given how difficult many of these families’ lives are already, with nearly one quarter of the students homeless, this will be yet another terrible disruption, though in this case, wholly preventable. One can only hope the DOE changes course and withdraws the proposal to close PS 25 immediately.
Below is the press release about the lawsuit, which describes a 2009 legal precedent when then-Chancellor Joel Klein withdrew a proposal to close three zoned schools in Harlem and Brooklyn after being sued. He then signed an agreement that the DOE would never do this again without a vote of the CECs. The legal complaint to block PS 25’s closure with more data about the school and facts about the law is posted here.
For Immediate Release: Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Contact: Leonie Haimson, 917-435-9329; leoniehaimson@gmail.com
Lawsuit filed to stop the closure of PS 25, the 4th best public elementary school in NYC according to the DOE
Today a lawsuit was filed in the Brooklyn State Supreme Court against the proposed closure of P.S. 25 Eubie Blake in District 16, Brooklyn, a zoned neighborhood school, which Chancellor Carmen Farina and the Board of Education are attempting to close without the prior approval of the Community Education Council.
Last month, on February 28, the Panel on Educational Policy voted to close the school which will require students to seek enrollment in other schools, with no assurance of admission. Not only is it a violation of NY State Education law 2590-e to close the only zoned school in the neighborhood without the district CEC’s prior approval, but P.S. 25 is also the fourth best public elementary school in NYC in the estimation of the Department of Education, and the second best in the borough of Brooklyn, when the need level of its students is taken into account.
According to the DOE’s School Performance Dashboard, which according to Chancellor Fariña is ““the most advanced tool of its kind,” the positive impact of P.S. 25 is greater than all but three of the city’s 661 public elementary schools, and its closure would leave the entire city-owned building to Success Academy Bed Stuy 3, a charter school. [1]
Achievement levels of P.S. 25 students have steadily climbed over the last three years, and the school now exceeds the city average in state test scores, despite the fact that a large percentage of students are homeless, economically disadvantaged, and/or have disabilities. According to DOE’s figures, the school’s students outperform similar students by 21 percentage points in ELA and math. The achievement of the more than thirty percent of students with disabilities is also exceptionally high.
The school also meets or exceeds standards in all the following areas: Effective School Leadership, Trust, Collaborative Teachers, Rigorous Instruction, Strong Family-Community Ties, and Supportive Environment.
Plaintiff Crystal Williams, a parent of two children at P.S. 25, said: “The school has seen a big improvement in recent years. The teachers are excellent. They give students close support, and my kids are learning. The teachers take their time in part because they have small classes, and I don’t believe my children would be provided with the same quality of education at whatever other schools they are forced to attend.”
“PS 25 should be honored and replicated, not closed,” said Mark Cannizzaro, President of the Council for School Supervisors and Administrators, the principals’ union. “The school has been on a clear, upward trajectory: Dedicated school leaders and teachers have helped boost English and math test scores ever higher compared to the district and the city as a whole. All the while, PS 25 has made great strides in addressing students’ social and emotional needs, and has offered them a vibrant curriculum with art, music, library skills, coding and STEM classes. We continue to oppose this decision. The students, families and educators of PS 25 deserve better.”
Said Shakema Armstead, a plaintiff who has a third grader at PS 25, “My son, who has an I.E.P, loves the school. It gives him and other students with a sense of community and stability that allow them to thrive. There is no reason for them to be thrown into another school where they would have to re-adjust to an entirely new environment, especially as P.S. 25 is doing so well.”
There is a precedent for this lawsuit. In 2009, a lawsuit was filed against Chancellor Joel Klein on behalf of parents at three neighborhood zoned schools, in Harlem and Ocean Hill-Brownsville area, to prevent the closure of these schools without a vote of the relevant CECs. The lawsuit was joined by Randi Weingarten, then President of the UFT, and NYC Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum. Within weeks, Chancellor Klein withdrew the closure proposals.[2] He subsequently signed the following settlement agreement:
The [plaintiffs and the DOE] agree with regard to the three schools identified in the Complaint and any other traditional public school that, for those grades that are within the province of school attendance zones, [the DOE] will not close, phase-out, remove, alter or engage in conduct designed to effect the closure of any such school in a way that deprives residents of the right to send a qualifying child to his or her zoned traditional school, without either (1) obtaining, pursuant to 2590-e(11) of the Education Law, the approval of the relevant Community Education Council as to such change or (2) timely replacing such school with another zoned school within the same attendance zone.
In this case, DOE has no plans to create another zoned school for these children, and yet no vote of Community Education Council 16 has occurred. The DOE claims that the school is being closed because it is under-enrolled, but this ignores several important factors: Parents have not been told of the exceedingly high quality of the school according to the DOE’s own metrics, and if they had been informed of this, more of them would likely enroll their children in the school. The DOE could also install another preK or a 3K program in the school. The availability of space has also allowed for very small classes, which in turn have provided PS 25 students with an exceptional opportunity to learn.
Said Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters, “It would be tragic if the second best elementary school in Brooklyn were closed. PS 25 has very small classes of 10 to 18 students, which are ideal for such high-poverty students. Given how the DOE refuses to align the school capacity formula with smaller classes, that alone makes the school appear underutilized. It would be extremely disruptive if this closure occurs, especially for the large number of homeless children at PS 25, because the school is a sanctuary of stability in their lives. Instead of closing PS 25, the DOE should celebrate, emulate and expand it—and give more NYC children the same chance to succeed.”
A copy of the lawsuit is posted here: https://tinyurl.com/y6wjocsu
###
[1] https://tools.nycenet.edu/dashboard/#dbn=16K025&report_type=EMS&view=City
[2] https://www.nyclu.org/en/press-releases/response-nycluuft-lawsuit-doe-announces-it-will-keep-schools-open
Diane Ravitch's blog 
PS 25 was a good school with a strong principal when I worked as Science Coordinator in CSD 16 in the 1990s. It’s infuriating that it is being closed over the objections of the community. This is what is happening, privatization is advancing– democracy be damned. Don’t let democracy die. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/16/1749563/-Privatization-Education-Eggs-in-the-Wrong-Basket
Are you sure this isn’t the wrong battle to fight? “closed over the objections of the community…”? Why has this school had a hard time attracting families from the community — not just since it was slated for closure but even before when it seems that efforts were made to attract students?
There is a good chance this school stays open given the publicity. So what happens then? Which school ends up closing instead? Some of the critics seem to believe that there are no choices to be made and every school can remain open. But every choice impacts something else.
I don’t know the particulars of PS 25 in 2018. But I do know that the proliferation of charter schools and the subsequent drain of students and funds for remaining public schools is destructive. I know that the effort to save a few kids comes at the expense of ensuring quality education for all. Equity and democracy are worth fighting for. It is disingenuous at best to underfund schools, disrespect their educators, and then blame them for lack of success.
“the effort to save a few kids comes at the expense of ensuring quality education for all.”
I suspect that is the dilemma faced by Bill de Blasio, who is being forced by law to accommodate the charters that Mayor Bloomberg is responsible for foisting upon communities. And if you read the many angry op eds from pro-charter writers, you can see that he was trying to drag his feet.
Now he is stuck with no good choices. Maybe he made the wrong choice by closing very small PS 25 but until critics offer some other option rather than “just ignore the law” which simply is unrealistic, what is he to do? Even if the DOE could use resources to increase the size of this school over the next few years, then what happens when they are obligated to make more room? It is possible the thinking is to do this now when the fewest students are in this school. No good choices.
Don’t close public schools.
Diane,
Are you saying it is better for the DOE to spend millions of dollars to rent private space for charters — as obligated by Albany — in order to keep open a school that isn’t attracting many students while other schools budgets are cut in order to pay for this?
I agree with the sentiment you shouldn’t close any public schools as long as the people saying this are acknowledging that money is coming from another part of the school budget that some other students are paying for. And that at PS 25, 16 kids per grade will have the equivalent of a private school student teacher ratio while other schools have 25 and more per class and 50 per grade. AND the DOE will have to find money from its budget to rent charter school private space, which will limit the money other schools have to budget.
Imagine if this was a school of middle class students demanding that they get to keep their 16 students per grade school intact while other schools serving disadvantaged populations had far more students per class and were making do with less? Would you still say “don’t close public schools” as a blanket statement and make the solution seem so simple? Even if economies of scale meant that the school of 16 students per grade was costing far more per student than the school of 25 or 50 per grade.
If anything, I believe you should not close schools just because they are getting poor test results because often that is simply a sign that they are teaching some of the most disadvantaged at-risk students. So when I see a school with a decent population of students and the critics are yelling “close that failing school”, I think that is terribly unfair to the teachers and students in it who are working very hard under trying circumstances.
I don’t think “don’t close public schools” makes sense as a philosophy because if there is a small underused public school in an affluent neighborhood where the parents demanded their kids have their 15 students per grade school remain open and draw disproportionate resources, I would find that to be wrong. If that was the case, I don’t think anyone here would think Mayor de Blasio was wrong to have those 15 affluent kids go to nearby schools instead of spending the money to allow them their own school. I don’t think the guiding theory in decision-making would be “don’t close public schools” when we live in an imperfect world without unlimited funds where choices have to be made.
The school should not be underenrolled. That’s the fault of the DOE. One visit from the Chancellor would advertise its success
As you say, DiBlasio is stuck enforcing a lousy ‘under-enrollment’ formula & cannot just ignore the law. But as per the lawsuit, this action likewise ignores the law:
(a) in closing the last zoned elementary pubsch in the area, w/o plans for replacement, the city is “ignoring the… legislatively created balance between local participation and central control by utilizing its power over school openings and closures to alter attendance zones unilaterally… without a preceding vote of approval to change the zoning lines by the affected CEC”. As noted by Haimson, a lawsuit was brought when Joel Klein was chancellor, and he withdrew plans to close 3 schools in the same situation.
(b) the city is already unfairly cherry-picking law enforcement (at least 5 other NYC schools w/smaller enrollments at no risk of school closure).
I spoke to several education officials about PS 25, and no one mentioned that law.
Powerful people ignore the law all the time, often with impunity. Maybe it’s time someone does it for the right reasons.
De Blasio, if he really supports public education, should ignore this purported law, keep the school open, and make Moskowitz spend a lot of her hedge fund supporters’ money taking him to court for every square inch of public school real estate she’s trying to appropriate. The mayor has many lawyers on staff, and should keep her tied up and bleeding money in court as long as it takes…
Yes, he should.
I don’t think that is fair to say “one visit from the Chancellor would advertise its’ success”. What makes neighborhood schools overcrowded and successful is word of mouth. I have seen it for myself. I know people now sending their kids to District 15 middle schools — I can think of 3 different ones — that just a few years ago they would not even have bothered to visit, let alone enroll their kids.
And it is not because the Chancellor visited. That seems like a very lame excuse for why this school is not attracting students and I’m sorry that I’m supposed to just take that as gospel.
To me, It’s incredibly condescending to the parents who live in the neighborhood to say that the only reason they aren’t going to the best public school in the city is they are too ignorant to know anything about it unless the Chancellor visits.
^^I should clarify that I would be delighted for this very deserving school to remain open. Just like I would be delighted for Success Academy to have to find a space for their charters that they pay for themselves and that don’t impact NYC public schools or force their limited budgets to pay expensive rents for charters who rent space privately.
I don’t like this decision. But then I don’t like ANY decision that closes schools. And I don’t like any decision that forces NYC taxpayers to underwrite charters underwritten by right wing billionaires.
That’s why I voted for de Blasio. Despite his hands being tied by Albany, he is trying to work to limit the damage that Albany has foisted on NYC public children by their demand that their budgets underwrite the richest charter networks.
de Blasio is making choices to limit that damage. They are not always the right choices but when there are no right choices and some school children will pay the price for Albany’s demands, it is worth trying to understand those choices instead of immediately assuming this is some abandonment of public schools. I absolutely believe that supporters of PS 25 should fight to keep their school open. What I object to is the posts like “Don Corley” make that immediately demand citizens mount an effort to recall de Blasio who “has turned his back on them and their children.” I continue to state that Don Corley’s claim that a decision to close PS 25 means the Mayor has abandoned public school kids is ridiculous.
NYCPSP, thanks for your very thought-provoking comments on this thread! Each time I’ve taken an iPad break today, I find myself poring over them :-). I had 2 more thoughts:
RE: “[Is it] better for the DOE to spend millions of dollars to rent private space for charters — as obligated by Albany — in order to keep open a school that isn’t attracting many students while other schools budgets are cut in order to pay for this?”
This points up the consequences of NYC’s peculiar reqt that taxpayers provide charters ‘free’ space. I suppose it was well-intended given exorbitant city RE costs, & based on the debatable proposition that charters are public schools. Perhaps charters couldn’t exist in NYC w/o this accommodation. What it says to me is that in a locale where space is at such a premium, taxpayers must pool all their money – & take advantage of every sq ft of publically-owned space – & put it all toward a unified pubsch sys w/long-range goals – to have a sys w/any hope of providing equal access to adequate ed. Running a 2-tier system in such a locale inevitably leads to balkanization, in the literal sense: fragmentation into smaller segments that are hostile or uncooperative with one another.
And the second one, re: why fight for an under-enrolled school? Well it’s not just any under-enrolled school, it’s a school that by BOEd’s own measures ranks among the best performers in the city. You make the uncomfortable but on-target point, how come mid-class taxpayers have to pay extra to superbly educate a small # of disadvantaged kids at the expense of larger #s of higher-tax-paying folks whose kids’ school budgets/ class sizes take the hit?
I think it’s the wrong way to frame it. It’s like the hatred of the masses of job/ security/ pension-robbed folk for public union members [“I’m paying for you to have better QOL than me”]. When the question that should be asked is, who robbed me – who’s pocketing the excess megabucks that used to be divvied up into many mid-class pockets? It is outrageous that NYC public ed should be such a zero-sum game, says any tourist gaping at the unbridled RE wealth on exhibit there.
The lawsuit, & Diane, say under-enrollment is the product of lack of BOEd advertising. You say word-of-mouth is more powerful than advertising. I question both viewpoints. Neither word-of-mouth nor press releases nor word of a Chancellor visit will reach the 28% transient/ homeless families. And I’m guessing most of the rest of family parents are working several jobs w/little time to keep up w/news. In an ideal pubsch sys, a school like this would be viewed as a pilot project w/the potential of informing other schs on best methods for educating the disadvantaged. & BOEd reps would be combing the shelters & cheapest housing to corral more participants.
bethree5,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply and also being willing to read my long-winded posts! I actually agree with a lot of what you said. One thing, however — there were charters paying their own rent in NYC for years. The DOE did not have to give them free space. Mayor Bloomberg offered free space to some of his favorite charters — the ones his billionaire pals supported — and there are other charters that have paid for their own space because when you don’t have to teach the most disadvantaged and expensive kids and you don’t have to pay for any of the DOE overhead that also benefits charter students, you actually have quite a bit of money to run a school with the per pupil allocation. The fact that those charters now get free rent when they already have far more money than any public school does is appalling. And the only reason charters’ rent costs must be borne by NYC taxpayers is because Mayor de Blasio stood up to them. He said “no” to spoiled charter operators who demanded everything and the NY State legislature with help from co-opted Cuomo (now THERE is a guy who deserves to be recalled) punished all NYC taxpayers by forcing us to pay for charters’ rent.
To me, it certainly makes sense that Mayor de Blasio is not wasting his breath talking about the evils of charters — that rhetoric resulted in NYC taxpayers now being legally obligated to pay charters’ rent. Instead, de Blasio is now doing his best to follow the law in a way that is least hospitable to charters and the most hospitable to public schools. That’s why I find it ironic to hear attacks on him implying he was secretly pro-charter all along and is now doing everything he can to help them. Those attacks are absurd. The Mayor is making CHOICES. And there is absolutely no evidence at all that his choices are being made with an eye to how to destroy the best public schools and give charters everything they want. But you would think so from some of the attacks on de Blasio’s “motives” by self-described progressives on here. (See Don Corley’s post below).
I agree with you about all the reasons that justify keeping PS 25 open. But I can step back and say “okay, if the DOE puts disproportionate resources into marketing and getting students to come to PS 25, where does that money come from?”
But you misunderstood me when you believe what I meant by that statement above is “how come mid-class taxpayers have to pay extra to superbly educate a small # of disadvantaged kids at the expense of larger #s of higher-tax-paying folks whose kids’ school budgets/ class sizes take the hit?” I don’t care whether middle class taxpayers pay extra for that. But it isn’t higher income schools that take the hit! This is NYC — where over 70% of the students are economically disadvantaged. I was a HUGE fan of pouring resources into Renewal schools that served the most disadvantaged kids!
Is PS 25 successful BECAUSE it is so tiny? At the same time people blame the Chancellor for not helping to “market” this school, is it really going to be the same with 25 kids in a class? With more?
And is it really fair to imply that PS 25 is far superior to all those other public schools in District 16 who also teach disadvantaged students? Are the teachers at those other District 16 elementary schools lazier than the teachers at PS 25? Are they just as hard working but just have no talent for teaching and should be fired? What is stopping all those other “failing” District 16 schools from being as good as PS 25, which is superior to them all? I am a little skeptical of putting this school up a pedestal as being more deserving — more deserving of small classes, and having lots of extra space and having more spent per pupil — because what that says is that the teachers at all the other elementary schools in District 16 are doing something that is terribly wrong. And I can’t help wondering if it is really that simple as one school has superior teachers and superior administrators. Why didn’t more parents enroll their kids in this excellent school?
I also think it is possible de Blasio is playing chess and now that he has “tried” to close this successful elementary school to give Success Academy the free space they wanted, and the law prevents him from doing so, his hands are tied. Anyone who believes that Mayor de Blasio would be sad that he couldn’t give Success Academy all that they wanted is just not paying attention. The last month the media has been filled with endless rage-filled op eds and attacks on de Blasio for not already giving SA what they wanted. Most people probably forget that Eva Moskowitz originally claimed that the Mayor MUST identify spaces for her charters by her “deadline” of September 2017. Then it was “after the November 2017 PEP meeting”. Here it is nearly April 2018, and she is seething. But no doubt laughing at how her enemies are helping her do her dirty work and starting efforts to recall Mayor de Blasio for not thwarting her more!
And yes, I admit it does make me upset to listen to dienne77 and Don Corley explaining how de Blasio deserves to be recalled because he has “turned his back” on all citizens and their children. It’s the kind of propaganda Eva Moskowitz would love to see happen and it would not surprise me if Don Corley is one of her trolls.
^^You also posted one other comment that I don’t think can be correct:
“Neither word-of-mouth nor press releases nor word of a Chancellor visit will reach the 28% transient/ homeless families. And I’m guessing most of the rest of family parents are working several jobs w/little time to keep up w/news.”
PS 25 is the zoned public school, so that IS the default school for any family who lives in the zone who is too busy working to keep up with the news. Someone who live in the PS 25 zone would have to actively opt out of PS 25 to get another school.
Now it’s possible that there aren’t as many kids of that age living in the zone anymore, but I don’t think this is a matter of not having time. It seems far more likely that the families with the least ability to navigate and choose among schools would end up at their default public school — PS 25. I just don’t understand why they do not. But that implies they end up at charters instead, which tend to be even more inhospitable to transient and homeless folks and which they would have to have the knowledge to apply to.
There are some good points here. I am all for schools staying open. Given how small the school is, and how great it is, can someone who knows it please provide some insight into why the population is so small? I think it’s a cop out to just say the DOE should be marketing. It is a neighborhood school. Those work by word of mouth. I have seen many formerly failing neighborhood schools grow and become overcrowded without the DOE conducting a marketing campaign for students. And is it a lie that there were some efforts in years past (before this decision was made) to attract neighborhood families? And the school wasn’t growing?
I also feel that Leonie is going down a dangerous path with her praise of this school and their test scores. Because it makes me wonder what is wrong with all the other District 16 neighborhood schools, which I assume are filled with subpar and uncaring teachers and inept principals and apparently are far more worthy to be closed instead of this one. Why aren’t they as good? Should one of them be closed instead and which one is it? What constitutes whether a school is a “success”?
Just seeing this comment now. I am against the closing of any of the D16 schools and wonder why because I and others support keeping PS 25 open this would be even be suggested.
Maybe it’s time for the citizens of NYC to consider mounting a recall drive against a mayor that has turned his back on them and their children.
This is the kind of response that you get when everything is presented as black and white.
Don Corley, I am guessing you are a troll – probably a right wing charter supporter as their billionaire funders have plenty of money to mount PR campaigns against anyone who stands in the way of expanding charters and undermining public schools. You will probably feign surprise that Mayor de Blasio has a huge target on his back from them.
Yes, this post was all about Diane Ravitch trying to convince NYC residents that Mayor de Blasio has turned his back completely on all the citizens of NYC and their children. That’s exactly what readers were supposed to learn from this post. That we have a Mayor who has turned his back on citizens and their children. Let’s recall de Blasio and replace him with someone who REALLY cares about NYC citizens — like Christine Quinn. Or someone who was a lot more like Mayor Bloomberg.
This is how trolls work. They take criticism that doesn’t acknowledge anything but evil motives to try to undermine every progressive Democrat as just being a tool of the right wing so they can be replaced by someone who really IS a tool of the right wing.
You don’t know the first thing about Don Corley. What the hell gives you the right to go making such ASSumptions about him?
I mean, other than that’s just your standard MO around here?
Wow, baseless assumptions, name calling, straw men, red herrings…it seems NYCpsp is unable to communicate, let alone argue, without excreting every logical fallacy I warn my students to beware of.
Take pride, NYCpsp, you’ve got to be closing in on the record for most fallacies expressed in the fewest number of words, and the lowest signal-to-noise ratio on this blog. That must take a lot of work.
“Yes, this post was all about Diane Ravitch trying to convince NYC residents that Mayor de Blasio has turned his back completely on all the citizens of NYC and their children.”
BTW, Diane, how does it feel when NYCPSP puts words into your mouth?
I try to follow the example of the MSD students and laugh when criticized.
Obvious, my attempt to be sarcastic completely failed. My comment to Don Corley that “Yes, this post was all about Diane Ravitch trying to convince NYC residents that Mayor de Blasio has turned his back completely on all the citizens of NYC and their children.” was intended as sarcasm. I realize it failed.
I apologize. I know for a fact that Diane Ravitch is not trying to convince NYC residents that Mayor de Blasio has turned his book completely on all the citizens of NYC and their children. I thought that would have been obvious but it clearly was not.
But just a challenge to Michael Fiorillo and dienne77 who jumped on me to attack me and completely ignored what Don Corley posted that I was responding to.
This is what Don Corley posted:
“Maybe it’s time for the citizens of NYC to consider mounting a recall drive against a mayor that has turned his back on them and their children.”
Is Don Corley right? Is that what YOU believe that Diane Ravitch wanted to accomplish by posting about PS 25?
I was SARCASTIC in my reply because I thought Don Corley’s post was the most ridiculous response and was NOT what Diane Ravitch believed.
But then again, I think that only a troll would say ” it’s time for the citizens of NYC to consider mounting a recall drive against a mayor that has turned his back on them and their children.” and be talking about Mayor de Blasio and not Mayor Bloomberg!
It shocks me that you didn’t call that out. Maybe Don Corley can convince NYC voters to go along with him!
Is Don Corley right? Should we all start joining him in calling for a recall campaign against Mayor de Blasio for turning his back on children?
Just calling your bluffs. Or maybe not if you both are so certain that Don Corley is making an excellent argument for how important it is that de Blasio be recalled.
Dienne77 asks:
“What the hell gives you the right to go making such ASSumptions about him?”
Here is what the person you are defending as a thoughtful poster whose opinions and ideas should be taken seriously and not a troll just posted:
“Maybe it’s time for the citizens of NYC to consider mounting a recall drive against a mayor that has turned his back on them and their children.”
What do YOU think is the proper response to the comment? Other than to be quiet when someone posts an absurd attack that I assume even Michael Fiorello would acknowledge was in no way a proper or accurate response to Diane Ravitch’s post?
Or does your “spidey sense” tell you that the response of Don Corley was perfectly reasonable and I had no business criticizing it because anyone who reads Diane’s post would come to the same conclusions?
“What do YOU think is the proper response to the comment?”
I would, if I were trying to actually defend De Blasio, well, actually defend him. I would find examples of how De Blasio has not, in fact, turned his back on people, but has actually helped people, let me show you how.
Because otherwise Don Corley (and others) might just assume that I didn’t actually have a defense for De Blasio, which is what ad hominem insults usually mean.
But then, I’m not the one trying to defend De Blasio, so I actually find it pretty humorous that sputtering outrage and insults are all you’ve got.
dienne77,
You make a good point and I will try to be more careful to respond to posts like this with more thoughtful replies. I absolutely admit that I tend to get particularly angry when I see posts like Don Corley’s that (coincidentally?) jump to exactly the same shockingly outrageous conclusions that right wingers try to push to turn voters against all progressive Democrats. I know that when I respond most intemperately to your own posts is when you also make sweeping and unwarranted condemnations against flawed by reasonably decent politician with similar over the top criticisms like Don Corley made that this politician has “turned their back on citizens and their children”.
I admit I don’t understand that kind of exaggerated criticism and it never sounds genuine but it sounds like trolls posting. I guess you believe that there are genuine people who post like that who would respond to facts and I will certainly try to use facts more often when I reply to people who sound like right wing trolls to me.
However, you didn’t answer my question. Why do you restrict your criticisms only to my responses and not Don Corley’s original post which — I think even Michael Fiorello would agree — was in no way justified by the post that Diane Ravitch wrote?
Imagine a discussion of some incident that involved a crime by a Mexican immigrant and a Trump supporter posted “that’s why we need to build a wall, because as Trump says Mexico sends us their rapists and criminals.”
Imagine if when I accused that person of being a troll, you jumped in to criticize only me for not giving a reasoned response and professed to have no opinion on the actual post I was responding to. Imagine if you only wanted to focus on my “sputtering outrage and insults” to a post I found offensive instead of even addressing what was offensive about what I was responding to?
” it’s time for the citizens of NYC to consider mounting a recall drive against a mayor that has turned his back on them and their children.”
I find it odd that you still have no criticism for the “Don Corley” post but reserve the entirety of your attacks for me, because I was outraged by it and didn’t respond properly up to your standards with data and evidence to support my response.
“Why do you restrict your criticisms only to my responses and not Don Corley’s original post which”
I am not in Don Corley’s head and I don’t mean to conflate my experience with his, but I’m guessing that perhaps he’s as sick of pseudo progressives like Obama and De Blasio as I am. I’m tired of hearing pretty words that support progressive policies only to be burned by a lack of action (and, in fact, action that directly conflicts with those pretty words).
In De Blasio’s case, he was originally elected largely on the basis of his stated opposition to charter schools. Once in office, he got spanked by Cuomo, then promptly retreated and hasn’t uttered a word of protest since as school after school has been co-located with charters grabbing their real estate for free. He’s made little to no effort to block charters. In fact, he and Farina have backed a lot of the rephomer policies that he once ran against.
This suggests two possibilities: (a) De Blasio’s a hell of a wimp to go running off with his tail between his legs after one spanking. Wimpiness would be a very rare trait indeed for a New York City mayor, which leads to the more likely possibility that (b) De Blasio was never opposed to charters/rephorm in the first place and only used his pretty words and token support to get elected, much like Obama used his “opposition” to “stupid wars”, his promise to protect collective bargaining and his support for the “public option” to get elected, then promptly made mincemeat of Libya, lost his “comfy shoes” and negotiated away the public option in a back-room deal with the insurance companies even as he was still promoting the public option to the people.
Again, I don’t speak specifically for Don Corley, but I believe I do speak for a very large number of progressives who are sick of this bait and switch from supposedly progressive Democrats and we’re done assuming good intentions or “lesser evil”-ness. If De Blasio wants to be believed that he really does support progressive causes, he can damn well get out there and use the vast resources he has to fight for them.
Incidentally, I am really, really sick of being accused of attacking you, when you’re the one who came on here calling a perfect stranger a right-wing troll simply because you disagree with his statement. When you have accused others who disagree with you of being Russian agents. When you constantly bring up “spidey senses” over and over and over. When you distort what other people say and put words in people’s mouths. If you’re looking for attacks, get a mirror.
If you don’t want to get “attacked”, stop attacking others, because I will call you out on it whenever I see it.
Oh, Dienne, emulate the MSD kids and laugh it off
So Diane is that your acknowledgement that I’m right like the MSD students? Wow. Impressive praise indeed from you.
So that would make NYCPSP like….
I’m truly shocked that I am having a ridiculous debate with dienne77 about whether “Don Corley” — someone whose name I don’t recall seeing here before — is just a concerned New York City citizen whose immediate reaction to Diane Ravitch’s post is:
“Maybe it’s time for the citizens of NYC to consider mounting a recall drive against a mayor that has turned his back on them and their children.”
Calling for Mayor de Blasio to be recalled with the most exaggerated attacks (“he’s has turned his back on citizens and their children!”) is not a problem for Dienne77 to defend. That’s the kind of response that dienne77 finds perfectly reasonable. She even explained how it is perfectly justified. After all, it’s up to his defenders to try to convince people who are certain – based on the “facts” — that de Blasio needs to be recalled that they are just a tiny bit misinformed.
Maybe Michael Fiorillo can help you and Don Corley is your admirable battle to recall de Blasio for his complete abandonment of public schools and all that is progressive. I don’t want to waste any more time having to “prove” to you with evidence that you will just dismiss that your certainty that he should be recalled for abandoning all progressive ideals is wrong. Continue your fight to undermine him and everything he stands for. I wonder how long before you turn that on Cynthia Nixon, whose support of de Blasio is clearly suspect and who no doubt has done something, somewhere that proves to you that she is just a big fat fake, too.
Some reading for those who agree with Don Corley and want to help him start his recall effort to make sure Mayor de Blasio is removed for because of their near certainty that “De Blasio was never opposed to charters/rephorm in the first place and only used his pretty words and token support to get elected”
https://patch.com/new-york/harlem/success-academy-claims-city-discriminates-against-harlem-school
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/harlem-charter-school-demand-classrooms-city-article-1.3882812
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/eva-moskowitz-rips-de-blasio-failing-open-classroom-space-article-1.3665689
https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/de-blasios-discrimination-against-charter-school-kids/
Interesting how all these editorials agree that Mayor de Blasio needs to go. Just like Don Corley and those who so strongly defend him want.
posted at oped:
https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Why-is-the-NYC-Department-in-General_News-Diane-Ravitch_Educational-Crisis_School_School-Reform-180327-482.html#comment694882
I thank Leonie Haimson, once more, for serving as the grown-up in the room in this situation (and for Diane Ravitch for perspicaciously asking her to weigh in on this disgraceful issue).
I’d like to see a graph of “Amount of cheek bubble blowing in a school vs Performance”
I’d guess there is a strong correlation (and probably even causation) between the two, but would like to see that confirmed by statrickstical analysis.
Wow, what a perfect illustration of how free-choice/ sink-or-swim policies have hijacked the original concept of public charter schools. If run under Shanker’s original proposals, PS 25 would be the subject of ed research, and plans for how to share its successful methods with traditional public schools. Instead, it’s closed.
As it is, PS25’s stellar results with transient homeless et al disadvantaged population probably reflect known/ researched factors like smaller classes, admin/teacher collaboration & community involvement – shareable concepts unwelcome to the ears of admin pushing ps students into the arms of bigger class/ teacher-churn/ take-it-or-leave-it message to community typical of charters. Because school choice isn’t about better ed thro trial & shared innovations, it’s about the bottom line. And the bottom line for public ed is calculated no differently in NYC than anywhere else: it’s focused on short-term budget reqts. It rarely considers long-term (or even actual short-term) budget results, & apparently does not consider quality of ed at all.