Leonie Haimson assesses Bill de Blasio’s record on education after eight years as Maor of New York City. He succeeded Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who served for 12 years and completely upended the schools, first, by getting the state legislature to give the mayor total control of the city’s public schools, then by closing scores of schools and replacing them with hundreds of small schools and charter schools. De Blasio had served on a local school board and offered the hope of restoring stability and ending Bloomberg’s era of constant disruption. (New York City has a two-term limit for its mayor but Bloomberg persuaded the City Council to make an exception for him and themselves).
Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters, reviews de Blasio’s record here.
She begins:
When he first ran for Mayor, Bill de Blasio portrayed himself as a leader who would make a host of progressive changes in our schools. He promised to be a far different leader than Michael Bloomberg, who had expanded high-stakes testing, proceeded to grade teachers and schools primarily via test scores, closed dozens of public schools displacing thousands of students, and helped charter schools expand in their place.
Bloomberg and his schools chancellors had done all this by ignoring community opposition, and despite any tangible evidence that this was the right way to improve education, particularly for disadvantaged students. Though Bloomberg had promised during his campaign to lower New York City schools’ excessive class sizes, they increased sharply during his administration, and by the time he left office he said he would “double the class size” if he could, and that would be “a good deal for the students.”
De Blasio said he would do things differently: to listen to and be responsive to parent and community concerns, de-emphasize test scores, and focus on improving public schools rather than providing space and funding to help charter schools expand. Instead of closing schools, he pledged to increase equity and strengthen learning conditions, including by lowering class sizes.
And yet his record on each of these issues was decidedly mixed. He did attain his primary goal in education – to provide universal, publicly-funded pre-kindergarten to every four-year-old, but in a manner that could have been better achieved, as will be discussed later.
There were some bright spots in the de Blasio record, including the Community Schools initiative, begun in the fall of 2014, in which schools partnered with community-based organizations to provide after-school programs, mental health supports, and other resources. By 2018, more than 200 community schools had been established. An independent study found that in these schools, there were lower rates of chronic absenteeism, more students graduating on time, and in elementary and middle schools, higher math scores and fewer disciplinary referrals.
Open the link to read the rest of this important article.

wow
LikeLike
“Ron Desantis tonight says that liberal educators are “teaching kids to hate this country,” so he is pushing for a new law so parents can “inspect curriculum,” and sue schools if they catch teachers who “smuggle in” any “inappropriate content.”
Should be interesting to find out what all those publicly funded private schools are teaching- or not. This, like all of the new ed reform regulations, applies only to the public sector schools they oppose ideologically.
Regulation and transparency and micromanaging for YOUR publicly funded schools, but not for theirs. Absolute hypocrites. Pure politics.
No debate or discussion at all within the ed reform echo chamber on how it’s completely incoherent to privatize whole swathes of K-12 education and exempt them from regulations and transparency WHILE ed reformers redouble efforts to “crack down” on public schools. It’s amusing to read- they’re not consistent even thru one op ed or cable tv appearance. No one notices, because one would need someone outside the echo chamber to point it out, and no one outside the echo chamber is hired.
LikeLike
There is also a ridiculous proposal to install cameras in all classrooms in public schools in Florida. This is the mindset of the right wing in the state. Overall, it would be a waste of tax dollars. It is as bad as the idea of arming teachers so that each school could have its own militia in case of an attack. What else does Florida teachers to do for the roughly $40,000 teachers are paid each year?
LikeLiked by 1 person
endless parent invasions will now follow, fussing about this or that action or statement seen in classrooms
LikeLike
Is there any discussion or comparison inside the ed reform narrative that public schools are “collapsing” amid the pandemic with a comparison to the United States wholly privatized health care system, which is ALSO collapsing, albeit more slowly?
If privatization were the magic cure all these people insist it is, wouldn’t we see that in the privatized health care system?
Oh, well. We’ll never know. Echo chamber just repeats, they don’t analyze.
LikeLike
We should be using school attendance, graduation rates and disciplinary numbers to determine how a school is doing instead of test scores. Completing high school is much more important than individual test scores that reflect wealth and access.
It is interesting that the recommendations from the committee are in sync with what community schools are doing by supporting the whole student, not just academics. Students that receive support for mental health and social emotional well-being will be able to better concentrate on academics.
LikeLike
Leonie’s hard work trying to make NYC public schools better is admirable. I have great respect for her unflagging dedication to fighting for smaller class sizes.
However, reading this is depressing as it reinforces why I now believe democracy is in grave danger. The one piece of propaganda that apparently all people can agree on is that Democrats and progressive politicians are awful and that all discussions should amplify and exaggerate their failures — making to sure to place all blame for those “failures” squarely where it belongs — on that politicians’ corruption or ineptitude or total lack of integrity. Minimize or ignore their successes, or point to how corruption is why even their successes are failures because they should have been even bigger successes!
Contrary to what Leonie said, de Blasio did listen to parents. Universal pre-k was important and Leonie’s criticisms about empty seats in privately run (charter-like) pre-k programs is because parents enrolled their kids into the pre-ks run by the DOE instead of the privately run charter-like pre-ks! Parents wanted their kids in PUBLIC pre-ks, not privately operated ones, when they were given a choice. But Leonie incomprehensibly attacks de Blasio for expanding PUBLIC pre-k in elementary schools (thus creating more overcrowding) and then turns around and condemns him for supposedly wasting money creating new public pre-k centers that aren’t located in public elementary schools! Leonie invokes the empty sets in privately operated charter-like pre-ks as the reason why de Blasio should be condemned for both putting public pre-k in elementary school and condemned for spending money to NOT put public pre-k in public elementary schools! Why? Because those private pre-ks have empty seats that parents didn’t choose because they preferred public pre-k! I truly do not get it. So what? Charters have empty seats, too, but that doesn’t mean that Leonie should bash the DOE for not forcing more students into charters to keep class sizes low.
Contrary to what Leonie said, de Blasio did listen to parents. Now that middle school choice is entirely lottery based, ask a public school parent whether their kids still feel the same pressure to get high test scores on their 4th grade exams?
Also, do a little research to find out why it was so hard to have small classes in Renewal schools. Do a little research and ask the teachers union what happens if teachers don’t want to teach at a renewal schools and other teachers who start there walk out. Do a little research and find out what happens when a Renewal school is forbidden by union rules to recruit the best teachers for their students by offering them significantly more money to work there.
It has bothered me a lot that Leonie’s advocacy for smaller class sizes doesn’t seem to want to get into the nitty gritty. Parent choice? Ask a parent if they prefer that their kid be in their popular but overcrowded neighborhood school with class sizes of 32 or sent to a neighboring school with much smaller classes. Years before the 1619 Project, Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote a terrific article about how that played out in Brooklyn Heights and Dumbo.
As for the specialized high schools? This call for de Blasio to take on a meaningless battle whereby a handful of the very smallest small high schools – most of which are already more diverse! – no longer uses the SHSAT is questionable.
From the 2019-2020 enrollment data:
Brooklyn Latin has 787 students and 98 of them are African American. HSMSE has 486 students total and 37 of them are African American.
Stuy has 3,384 students and 28 of them are African American.
And Leonie criticizes de Blasio for not taking on the divisive and meaningless battle to change admissions in Brooklyn Latin and HSMSE – but not Stuy – that will result in a lawsuit the DOE may or may not win? For what gain? It doesn’t even begin to address the real issue. Leonie thinks that is more important than the battles de Blasio has taken on? de Blasio is the first Mayor to speak out about how wrong the SHSAT-only admissions is and is the first Mayor to actually present an ALTERNATIVE PLAN that doesn’t exclude Stuy! If anything, Leonie should be bashing the progressives in Albany who won’t touch this — and other progressives like AOC who has not come out demanding an end to the SHSAT either. So it’s hard for me to understand why Leonie bashes de Blasio for not expending political capital to fight a lawsuit that – even if he wins — will affect HSMSE and Brooklyn Latin and not Stuy?
I think the NYC progressives who have spent so much time demonizing de Blasio deserve Eric Adams. I bet they are not nearly as critical of Adams as they were of de Blasio. Criticism of Bloomberg never focused on his extreme lack of integrity or corruption or character flaws the way it did with de Blasio. I expect Adams will get the same treatment — his policies will slowly undermine NYC public schools and delight the privatizers and the critics will politely disagree with his policy choices, not try to attack his character to undermine his entire agenda.
We get the government we deserve. I think de Blasio will be missed. His education policies changed NYC in extremely positive ways, and all people focus on is the failures. Meanwhile, seems like almost everything Bloomberg did was in service to privatizers. Won’t surprise me if Eric Adams continues that. Won’t surprise me if the criticism of him isn’t muted.
LikeLike
Yes, Universal Pre-K is important, but empty seats are fiscally irresponsible and unnecessary. This initiative should have been expanded with some level of forethought as this would have been in the best interest of children, families, the early care providers as well as taxpayers. The fact is Mayor de Blasio thoughtlessly and recklessly over expanded his Pre-K For All initiative. In 2014, he gobbled up real estate all over NYC, invested taxpayer dollars in construction and renovations and opened DOE-run Pre-K programs. These programs are in close proximity to many DOE contracted privately run programs, who have been successfully providing free UPK services for years. These community-based organizations are not “charter-like” but are not-for-profits, women and minority owned businesses, religious institutions, private schools and storefront daycares, who have been serving their communities for generations. These sites provide high-quality care and education and routinely outscore their DOE counterparts on both CLASS and ECERs.
The DOE controlled enrollment and assigned parents to their own sites first. This caused tremendous instability for these private sites. Additionally, the overabundance of seats to the number of children has led to empty seats in both DOE and privately run programs. How does any of this make sense when NYC K-12s are so overcrowded? Four year-olds eventually become five year-olds and these same children deserve better than the over-crowded classrooms that they experience upon completion of Pre-K.
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/06/09/bay-ridge-pre-k-millions/
https://ny.chalkbeat.org/2019/5/16/21108175/clean-up-your-mess-some-nyc-pre-k-providers-have-tough-message-for-de-blasio-ahead-of-white-house-bi
LikeLike
Overexpanded?
Talk to Leonie below because she has spent years fighting to convince people that “empty seats” aren’t wasteful – they just mean lower class sizes! I can’t believe we are really have a discussion about the problems with “empty seats” in pre-k classrooms.
Now that’s a bad thing? ‘Over expanding”?
You probably know that universal pre-k funding started when Bloomberg was Mayor and he was the one who chose to fund CBOs using non-union staff to provide many of the pre-k seats. The “long history” isn’t really that long. Someone could make the same argument now that charter schools in NYC have a “long history” of teaching students. After all, charters that use non-union labor have now been around for some 15+ years and that’s similar to the CBOs funded by Mayor Bloomberg to run pre-k.
I still would lke to see some evidence that parents were clamoring for seats in CBOs that had empty seats and the DOE would not allow them to take them. However, the article you linked to convinced me that teachers in CBOs were leaving for higher paying union jobs in public pre-ks. Is that a bad thing?
LikeLike
Facts are stubborn things…in NY, UPK began in 1998, before Mr. Bloomberg’s tenure. The state ed department required that this pre-k initiative be in partnership with community-based organizations. What is possibly desirable about the DOE spending millions of dollars opening pre-k sites, designed to hold hundreds of 4 year-olds, with only half of the classes being utilized? Pure fiscal waste. That money, and maybe that space, could have been used to alleviate the overcrowding in nearby public schools.
LikeLike
Alice is right. With every comment, “NYC public school parent” who refuses to reveal her identity instead reveals her ignorance. Publicly-funded preK in NYC long pre-dates the Bloomberg administration and in fact, in the 1960’s there were some city-funded preK programs in some high-poverty schools. In 1998, when the state provided funding to expand preK, then-Chancellor Rudy Crew decided 2/3 of the seats would be placed in CBOs so as to not further overcrowd elementary schools and to reserve as much space as possible to lower class size in those schools. Now only about 1/3 of preK seats are in CBOs.
The extra space and empty seats in DOE-run preK centers does not lead to smaller classes; preK classes are already capped by state law at 18-20.
If you want to worry about “privatization” a substantial percent – 16% — of NYC preK seats are in private and religious schools, and the city has allowed them to hold religious instruction and have prayer breaks, in a deal made by de Blasio, that was widely criticized by many including the NYCLU. https://www.ocala.com/story/news/2015/03/16/nycs-plan-for-prayer-break-in-pre-k-classes-raises-concerns/31955400007/
I don’t have time to counter any more of the misinformation spread by this person, Diane, but I do wonder if she is on the de Blasio payroll.
LikeLike
Anyone who wants to do what I did and read the actual facts about universal pre-k and see that the definition of “long history” could be applied to charter schools, too. There were some city-funded pre-ks in NYC public schools in the 1960s and there were schools like Deborah Meier’s Central Park East during that time. They weren’t PRIVATIZED.
As Leonie states: “In 1998, when the state provided funding to expand preK…” Guess what the state also provided funding to in 1998? Charter schools. The fact that the state wanted private operators getting public funding to run pre-k or charters doesn’t make it inevitable or mean that doing so is always “the best” choice. It is an option. So citing a “long history” of CBOs is about as convincing to me as a charter promoting citing a “long history” of public funding of private charters in NYC.
Leonie criticizes de Blasio for not using that option more! Just like charter promoters criticize de Blasio for not using the charter option more. It’s a valid opinion, but I am glad that de Blasio wasn’t looking to prioritize using the funding for private operators.
I agree that schools that teach religion shouldn’t be funded, whether pre-k or charter. Is that a regulation of the funding? If not, shouldn’t the criticism be of the state?
I used this source, written in 2005 which actually details how it played out and supports my view that using the trope that CBOs have a “long history” so there should have been more privatization of pre-k by de Blasio is questionable. I oppose charters even if there is now a “long history” of them, and I wouldn’t attack a politician for not including charters so that more students would leave public schools and attend privately operated charters, and therefore there would be a lot more room in those schools for smaller class sizes. It’s a valid argument, but the basis for it is a belief that having privately operated organizations get public funding to take over a part of public education is questionable to me.
I do not believe using privately operated organizations to take over the job of education – whether pre-k or K-12 – is a solution to small class sizes, and I don’t know why Leonie would support that in any way.
But I do agree with her that allowing privately operated organizations to use their own space to teach some NYC students would leave more room in public schools for the others.
And the big expansion of pre-k using private organizations happened from 1999 onward — at the end of Republican Mayor Giuliani’s term and throughout Mayor Bloomberg’s term. I support Mayor de Blasio investing in new buildings so that the PRIORITY of the further expansion of pre-k could be done as public pre-k instead of prioritizing privatizing it as the Republican Mayors wanted. I am surprised that Leonie does not.
Link to report below.
LikeLike
^^^
Pages 6 and 7 of this 2005 report about pre-k is useful
Click to access pewpkndiversedeliveryjul2006pdf.pdf
LikeLike
Diane asked me to respond to this so I will. First of all, comparing CBO-run PreK programs to charter schools is way off-base. Most CBO’s have provided family- connected, high quality learning environment for PreK students for years, largely based on play, that have rated very highly in all the evaluations done – even those reported by DOE, and they provide these services to 5:30 PM or 6 PM that many parents need, contrary to many public schools. When parents apply to preK, they now have to do it through a DOE portal which controls the admission process and many times assigns them to overcrowded elementary schools whether they wanted their kids in these schools or not. Moreover, in crowded neighborhoods sometimes parents actually want their preK kids in these schools, not because these are better but only so they would be guaranteed a seat in Kindergarten there rather than put on a lengthy wait list- though that wasn’t necessarily the case.
As to the middle school admission process, it is a perfect example of unaccountable delay, delay, delay — as it was only announced Dec. 14 despite the fact that de Blasio’s own diversity task force recommended years ago that it be changed. Even then, the waiving of academic screens was announced as “temporary” based on the pandemic, and like the suspension of the gifted program will be very easy for Adams to reverse, as is likely.
I and others criticized Bloomberg for his policy failures and his top-down autocratic decision-making, and criticized de Blasio throughout his administration for many of the same faults. Neither one listened to research and what parents want to see in their schools, when it comes to class size and other issues, and both wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on faulty programs, contracts and consultants, while refusing to provide any transparency about their spending and other decision-making, with years of delay in responding to FOILs etc. The major problem with Mayoral control is how it has allowed one man, no matter whether he portrays himself as a conservative, moderate or progressive, to make decisions largely based on his personal biases and how he views the politics involved, rather than what the evidence shows is best for kids.
In the meantime, I hope that people read the piece and decide for themselves. There is a lot of problematic policies and behavior that de Blasio engaged in, as many parents reminded me after it as published, including the way he traded an extension of mayoral control over the public schools for refusing to provide the legally required oversight over the education adequacy of tens of thousands of Yeshiva Ultra-orthodox students, in the most craven and irresponsible way, who continue to suffer from vastly deficient schools. My piece is here
https://www.gothamgazette.com/opinion/11020-downside-de-blasio-education-record
More on the Yeshiva situation here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/nyregion/yeshivas-education-report-new-york.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/10/16/problem-with-new-yorks-ultra-orthodox-jewish-schools-during-pandemic/ For more, check out https://yaffed.org/
LikeLike
First of all, thank you for taking the time to reply. But some of your answers support exactly what I was talking about when you bashed de Blasio for not lowering class sizes. I also don’t understand how you can be so upset at “empty seats” in pre-ks, which means smaller class sizes! Isn’t that what you have been fighting for?
And I could substitute “charter school” for CBO in this sentence:
“Most charters [CBO’s] have provided family- connected, high quality learning environment for [PreK] students for years…that have rated very highly in all the evaluations done – even those reported by DOE…”
(If you look at the history, those CBOs were funded by the state to provide pre-k around the same time as charters were expanding. it was only when Mayor Bloomberg was in office that the state funded pre-k and Bloomberg got CBOs to offer pre-k seats instead of establishing more seats in public school buildings or building new pre-k centers — both of which you objected to. Maybe Bloomberg thought it worked so well to have non-profit operators using non-union labor for pre-k that he decided to do the same thing with charters.)
Most charters also use non-union staff, just like CBOs. I don’t understand why you would not be cheering that de Blasio tried to expand the public part of pre-k as much as possible? Citing empty seats as “wasteful”? Why not cite it as a huge benefit to the students lucky enough to be in a program that isn’t full?
“Moreover, in crowded neighborhoods sometimes parents actually want their preK kids in these schools, not because these are better but only so they would be guaranteed a seat in Kindergarten there rather than put on a lengthy wait list- though that wasn’t necessarily the case.”
This supports my question you didn’t address. Citing parents wanting their kids in popular overcrowded schools. That was always my question to those who advocate for smaller class sizes because “parents want them”. But what’s the plan when parents would rather be in an overcrowded school?
I thought the clearest evidence that the de Blasio DOE supported the very things you are highly critical of them for not achieving is the changes they did make. A group of parents in District 15 did the hard work of coming up with a plan for middle school choice that didn’t involve state test scores, and got parents to buy in. It took years. And the de Blasio DOE worked to enact this, even before the pandemic.
In 2019, before the pandemic, de Blasio’s DOE enacted a lottery-only middle school choice program in District 15. He did that specifically because he listened to a group of parents that did the hard work of getting parents from all backgrounds to buy into it. He LISTENED to parents. I really don’t get how you can only see the bad.
The pandemic just made it politically feasible for de Blasio to expand a program that had already been piloted with his support because he “listened to parents”. Do you really think Mayor Bloomberg would have done this?
One thing that disappoints me is that I don’t really understand your vision for smaller class sizes when there isn’t enough space in popular school. I don’t understand your vision when you acknowledge that parents are so willing to have their kid in a popular overcrowded school that they would spurn having their kid in a good pre-k for one that they don’t like just to give them a better shot at an overcrowded popular school. How does one “lower class size” except by telling 1/4 of the parents that they can’t go to that school? I haven’t really seen any parents buying into that — have you?
When de Blasio’s DOE tried to do re-zoning so that some schools wouldn’t be as crowded while other schools were empty, it was wildly unpopular with parents at the overcrowded schools. Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote about it. What is the plan offered by people who want to lower class size?
I want small class sizes. So do many parents. The devil is in the details. And all the “details” are easy to bash. I don’t expect any Mayor to be able to completely change NYC public schools, but their policies can move them forward or backward. Bloomberg moved them backward. de Blasio moved them forward. I agree that he used too many contractors but he also had a philosophy to SUPPORT public schools instead of undermining them and he put his money where his mouth was. I don’t understand how all you can see is how none of his plans was good enough for you. I can’t really argue that any plan could not have been better in some universe, but the first step is doing something, not just talking about something in the abstract.
But the bashers certainly deserve Eric Adams. Maybe he can achieve small class sizes by expanding charters, giving them huge amount of DOE funding to find private space for their charters that use non-union teachers. It would be just like pre-k CBOs. Get a lot more students out of the schools and that allows room for smaller class sizes for others.
If there is a better plan, I’d like to know what it is. de Blasio tried rezoning and there was definitely not a groundswell of parents supporting that. But I expect Eric Adams to move us in a different direction than what de Blasio did and that’s really a shame. But it’s much easier to do when the public is certain that de Blasio didn’t do anything good, anyway.
LikeLike
My other comment is held up and this one might be, too.
Albany is in charge of Yeshivas. Even the articles you linked to make that clear. The state’s oversight ability is unchallenged. The Mayor’s oversight ability is subject to all kinds of legal challenges that he is just as likely to lose as to win. And the report that came out years ago hasn’t been acted on by the state. So I don’t really understand why the fact it was delayed — even if it was delayed as “horse trading” so that NYC could actually get something in return — bothers anyone since it apparently didn’t make a bit of difference to the people in Albany who actually can do something about yeshivas. I would like Albany to do something about private Christian schools, too.
There are a lot of religious schools all over that parents pay money to send their kids to that are awful.
The Mayor has tried to use the carrot to get yeshivas to do a bit better because he has no stick. He has no stick, period. The state does. They should use it. I would be pretty angry if the Mayor wasted tons of resources and efforts and political capital to try to do something that he doesn’t have the power to do. I wish yeshivas were better, but as those articles make clear, scapegoating de Blasio for something that he can’t do is like scapegoating him because the specialized high schools still aren’t diverse enough.
At some point we can scapegoat de Blasio for everything we don’t like. I see people doing that with Biden, too, so it doesn’t really surprise me. It is just disappointing to read something without a little more balance. de Blasio was 1,000x better than Bloomberg with regards to public schools, but you wouldn’t know it from that article.
LikeLike
I started my comments by stating that I admired the good work that Leonie does. I have a disagreement with her very strong and almost entirely negative view of de Blasio. I tried to support my reasoning with facts and argument.
And I am extremely disappointed in Leonie’s response.
“I don’t have time to counter any more of the misinformation spread by this person, Diane, but I do wonder if she is on the de Blasio payroll.”
Surely Leonie knows better than to accuse someone of “being on a payroll” instead of engaging in a discussion or addressing the challenges they made to someone’s writing. Both Leonie and Diane Ravitch get accused of “being on the payroll” of the teachers’ union.
When Leonie resorts to that, I lose a lot of respect for her.
Because I take the time to read the links provided by people who disagree with me and try to address their points, I learned before I wrote my first reply that Alice Mulligan is “the director of a private preschool in Brooklyn”. She was quoted in one of the articles she linked to that I read. But only someone who read through the entire article would know who she is.
But in my reply to Alice Mulligan addressing her comments, I never accused her of being “on the payroll”, even though technically as a private pre-k director, she is on the payroll!
I felt it would be beneath me to mention it in my reply because I am not interested in discussing any biases or accusing her of hiding something.
I am interested in engaging in the points Alice Mulligan made, and that’s what I did. I never even mentioned her job.
So when Leonie resorts to accusations of my being “paid”, I lose all respect. I hope she apologizes.
I am a NYC public school parent. I don’t get paid by anyone. I assume some people with an agenda probably figured out who I am, and the reason I am not outed is because I am who I said I am and have never worked in city government or for de Blasio. I have often mentioned that I voted for de Blasio in his first primary specifically because he was the candidate who was best on public education and I still believe that is true. He was the only democrat willing to take on privatization, and he still is. I don’t hold it against him that he was brave enough to try and failed and suffered because of it. No one else has ever been brave enough to try – including those running this year. Even pro-public school candidate Scott Stringer – the only candidate given the power to conduct an audit of a powerful charter chain – wasn’t brave enough to stick his neck out and use his bully pulpit when going up against a powerful charter. de Blasio was.
In the interests of transparency, I should have said that many years ago I was once on a public elementary school’s PTA executive board! Does that make me biased because I volunteered for a job on the PTA?
Even if I did work for de Blasio, I would still expect Leonie to defend why she seems to be so focused on amplifying the supposed “failures” of de Blasio and minimizing his successes? I agree with some of her criticisms, but I could tear apart her own organization by only focusing on what they don’t do or haven’t accomplished (I still want to know what their plan for getting parents to leave their overcrowded but very popular zoned school is) and ignoring the fact that Leonie’s organization is overall trying to do very good work. I appreciate the work she is doing.
Overall, Bloomberg wasn’t trying to enact policies I agreed with — he was working to enact policies that were harmful. de Blasio is doing the opposite. Bloomberg wasn’t “successful” in being as damaging to public schools as he wanted to be, but he was still incredibly damaging to them. de Blasio wasn’t “successful” in being as supportive to public schools as he wanted to be, but he was still incredibly supportive.
LikeLike