Archives for category: Bloomberg, Michael

This is an extraordinary article, not only because of what it reveals, but because it appears in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, which has been a reliable cheerleader for our billionaire mayor.

Investigative reporter Tom Robbins details how Mayor Michael Bloomberg used his billions to silence critics and to win the support of or intimidate almost every civic and cultural group.

In other times and places, people worry that big money will buy the mayor’s support. In New York City for the past dozen years, the mayor has bought the support of almost everyone who might have been a critic or might have an independent voice. One of his favorite gambits was to cut the budget of a group that is heavily dependent on city funding, then make an allegedly anonymous contribution to the same group. The media often printed long lists of these “anonymous” contributions, acknowledging that they came from the mayor and were dispersed through the Carnegie Corporation.

This strategy made all the groups he “saved” dependent on his personal largesse. He was truly the Lord of the manor.

Robbins did not discover every trick the mayor used to buy support and silence critics. He has no way of knowing which influential intellectuals and power brokers are on the Mayor’s personal payroll, because the mayor is under no obligation to disclose his private spending.

It may be years before Mayor Bloomberg finds his Robert Caro. Caro writes in-depth biographies of famous people. In time, it will happen, and we will learn how Michael Bloomberg employed his vast fortune to win support, to intimidate once-independent critics, and to buy off activists from various communities.

Until then, Tom Robbins has pulled back the curtain in Oz. There is no magic; just a whole lot of money. Like, $27 billion.

The Bloomberg administration loves small schools. Conversely, it hates large schools, especially large high schools. The city used to have dozens of large high schools, some of which had a storied history. Now few remain. One that was slated to close last year was Long Island City High School, but it was saved by a court order.

So the Department of Education is killing it by the usual means, by diverting students to other schools. As enrollment falls, so does funding. We previously saw this process at historic Jamaica High School, where the city starved it of students and funding until programs died and nothing was left but bare bones of what was once the pride of the community.

Mayor Bloomberg’s third term really is coming to an end. In an unprecedented move, the Mayor’s Department of Education (which does nothing substantive without his approval) abandoned plans to tear down two schools so that developers could build luxury projects on their land. This retreat was the result of strong community opposition from parents and community members on the Upper West Side. This is a victory for democracy.

The students would have been displaced while developers put up high-rise apartment buildings.

“One of the schools saved, P.S. 199 on West 70th Street, was designed by the modernist architect Edward Durell Stone. Laurie Frey, a member of the Community Education Council in District 3, said that as a liaison to P.S. 191 on West 61st Street, she was relieved because under the plan that had been considered, half a playground would have been destroyed and children would have been attending classes on two floors below ground level in the new building.

“Asking 6-, 7-, 8- and 9-year-old children to walk past the demolition of their schools and then see a high rise go up is not a good way to engage with the core curriculum,” she added.

Here is a summary of the situation by Asemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal, who represents the area affected. She sponsored legislation to assure that all future dispositions of land by the New York City Department of Education and related agencies would be subject to a review process that included representatives of the affected communities as well as a public hearing. This would assure, at the least, that the DOE would not be able to take the community by surprise and give away its schools and land to developers.

VICTORY!

UPPER WEST SIDE SUCCESSFULLY FIGHTS OFF DOE REDEVELOPMENT OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

In a victory for Upper West Side schools, the New York City Department of Education (DOE) bowed to community pressure and has announced that it will not move forward with plans for redevelopment at Manhattan P.S. 191 and Manhattan P.S. 199. I am gratified that DOE came to realize that trying to force a project of this magnitude without any public process on the Upper West Side will always be met with a wall of united opposition.

The DOE first proposed to demolish these schools and the School of Cooperative Technical Education on the Upper East Side with an advertisement to developers in a November 2012 issue of Crain’s. The DOE would have leased the land to a private developer who would demolish the schools and build luxury housing with a school at the base. Make no mistake about it: this plan was never about education or providing seats for our children–it was conceived as a giveaway to developers. The DOE did not notify anyone in the targeted communities of its intentions and, even after a community outcry, gave just one presentation in February which provided little useful information.

On the Upper West Side, we refuse to stand for the City playing games with our public schools, and I wrote to the DOE to express my disgust with its refusal to engage the community and let parents have a say in its decision on whether to redevelop any of the schools. I also sent DOE a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request for answers to many of the questions it left unanswered and worked with the affected communities of both schools to organize informational meetings and rallies. The marvelous collaboration with community leaders and area elected officials culminated last night in a rally and forum attended by hundreds of parents, teachers, children and community members who made their voices heard and said no to redevelopment.

This victory, coming on the heel’s of last night’s public meeting, would never have been possible without the thousands of Upper West Siders who signed petitions, wrote letters, demonstrated and organized. I especially want to thank the following groups and fellow elected officials for their efforts and advocacy:

Coalition to Save Our Schools
Museum Magnet School / Manhattan P.S. 191 Redevelopment Committee
United Federation of Teachers
Lincoln Square Community Coalition
Amsterdam Houses Residents Association
Coalition for a Livable West Side
New York Communities for Change
Congressman Jerrold Nadler
Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer
State Senator Brad M. Hoylman
State Senator José M. Serrano
State Senator Adriano Espaillat
City Councilmember Gale A. Brewer

However, DOE will unfortunately continue pursuing its secretive redevelopment process at the School of Cooperative Technical Education at 321 East 96th Street. I was told that DOE will release a Request for Proposals, but it does not have a firm timeline for doing so. Targeting the school whose students are most geographically dispersed and less organized does not make DOE’s agenda any more palatable. If the East Side community opposes this development, I am sure we will work together to save their school.

I want to again congratulate the Upper West Side on showing the City that we have had enough of backroom deals and secret plans. The students of P.S. 191 and P.S. 199 can go on summer vacation knowing that they will have a school to return to in the fall!

Linda B. Rosenthal
Member of Assembly – 67 AD

David Sirota sees the current disastrous era of school “reform” as a shell game that blames teachers and schools while diverting the gaze of the public from the root causes of poor academic performance.

Persist. This too shall pass.

Yoav Gonen and Frank Rosario in the New York Post report a spike in the number of homeless students in the New York City public schools.

They write:

“More than 53,000 city public-school students lack a permanent home — a fivefold increase over 2008, figures show.

“While the economy’s collapse led to a huge spike in the number of homeless kids in public schools, the figure has continued to climb by more than 10,000 kids since 2010, according to city Department of Education data.

“As of October 2012, one out of every 20 public-school students was living in a shelter, at an address shared by multiple families or in a hotel or motel.”

Advocates for the homeless predicted that the numbers would increase.

Patrick Markee of the Coalition for the Homeless said, “The continuing economic crisis and the high cost of housing continue to be pricing out more and more kids and families from the housing market…At the same time, the failures of Mayor Bloomerg’s policies . . . have contributed to all-time records of homelessness.” He cited the Bloomberg administration’s decision to eliminate affordable-housing assistance as a major source of the problem.

The articles cite two schools where more than 40 percent of the students were homeless.

Homeless students have a hard time doing their studies. When the test scores come out, these schools are likely to have low scores. If so, the leadership of the Department of Education will label them “failing schools,” and they may be closed. This will increase the burdens on the students who are homeless.

This reader echoes a frequent complaint expressed by parents in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg’s choice program gives choice to schools, not students. Sometimes one wonders if he is literally aiming to drive middle-class parents out of the school system and into charters, which will rescue their children from schools that the Tweed gang neglected.

The reader explains her frustration:

“There is No School Choice – Disenfranchising Children and Parents in District 15

School choice is a hallmark of the Department of Education under the Bloomberg/Tweed regime in New York City. But last week with the arrival of middle school placement letters in District 15, Brooklyn, it was made painfully clear to everyone, the choice is not ours, but theirs. My son, along with other boys from our high achieving elementary school was placed in a school that nobody chose. He was placed in a school where only 24% of the students read at grade level, in DOE parlance, a failing school. It is also a school without a rich curriculum of art and music. It is a school that has been forced to share space with other schools including the most recent encroachment of the Eva Moskowitz’s Success Charter Chain. Other students from across the district met the same fate. Boys from one successful elementary school were placed in a middle school where 17% of the children read at grade level and whose mission is to serve at risk children – exactly not the child now being sent there. Does this sound like choice by anyone’s definition?

What does the newly appointed 27-year-old Chief Operating Officer of the DOE do to earn his $202,000 salary? Are we to believe this is all the result of incompetence on the part of Tweed or is it something worse – deliberate mismanagement? One would think that they were intent on driving away families. Indeed, some families of means have already jumped ship. There are plenty of private schools if you have the money.

There is a huge disparity between schools in the district. Some are more desirable than others for good reason – some have a comprehensive curriculum of art, music, dance; others offer little in the way of arts. Some have reputations of being safe, others for violence and bullying. These are not the schools where parents want to send their children. To be clear – I believe that all children deserve to go to safe schools where there is a comprehensive arts program. And I would hope that no child in any school would be bullied or intimidated, but sadly we know that is not the case.

Children who come from crime-ridden neighborhoods and from families that suffer under the stresses of poverty, racism and discrimination, tend to need extra support, a fact that Tweed has yet to comprehend. They have yet to figure out that all this sorting and stacking of children has not improved schools, that we should not relegate low achieving students to one school and high achieving ones to another. Undoubtedly it would be better to have a mix of students with varying skills in a well-funded school with a comprehensive curriculum and a supported staff. This would go a long way towards bringing up those precious test scores. But perhaps it is a deeper problem. Are there too many children living in poverty? Too many children feeling the impact of discrimination and racism? Too many problems that the Tweed is ill-equipped to deal with and therefore chooses to ignore?

The dearth of successful schools for all children is a failure of leadership, vision and planning on the part of the men and women who run the New York City Department of Education. However, in this age of accountability, I suppose all the blame lies with the one man who has had twelve years to right all that was wrong with the system, Michael Bloomberg.

No achievement gap has been closed. No high level of proficiency for all students has been reached. How can it be that 12 years into Bloomberg’s reform agenda we still have schools in which a mere 20% of students can read at grade level? And now we know the Bloomberg administration doesn’t know how to count. In one popular middle school 1,300 students applied for 320 seats, at another smaller school, 1,000 applied for 180 seats. Clearly we need more middle school seats in the district. This situation did not develop overnight. Bloomberg and his minions at Tweed had years to develop new schools or to expand existing successful elementary schools. And no, the two new charter schools in the district are not the answer.

Parents have been left out of this process as they are left out of all decisions Tweed makes on behalf of our children. They unilaterally decided to forgo matching students with suitable placements without bothering to consult the parents. We do not even know how this arduous process for ten-year olds works. It began way back in October with middle school fairs, open houses and tours that many of us took time off from work to attend. Neighborhood middle schools no longer exist; students must apply to district schools. The application process for these choice middle schools also involves interviews and tests. Focus on fourth and fifth grade report cards is intense. Scores of 3 or 4 on the Pearson standardized tests is a pre-requisite for one of the selective schools. We fill out an application and list schools in order of preference. And then we wait months for results. This year some students got their first choice, some got their second or third and some got none of their choices. No rhyme or reason, and certainly no explanation. This should be a transparent process.

Our public school system has been mangled under the reign of Bloomberg leaving behind many children from all neighborhoods across district 15, and the rest of the city. Children and their families who did everything they are supposed to do and were kept in line with the promise of gaining entry to a “good” school were left behind. And the children who attend those “failing” schools were left behind. We need to organize and make Tweed accountable to us. But how does that happen? Walcott puts in appearances from time to time for photo ops, Polakow-Suransky attends town hall meetings and forums when forced to, but how does a parent actually get to speak to someone in charge at Tweed? I would like them to explain to me how schools under their leadership are improving the education of my child, or anyone’s child.

Leonie Haimson is Néw York City’s one-person Truth Squad.

While Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott was telling anyone who would listen about the stellar education record of the Bloomberg years, Haimson marshaled data to demonstrate that New York City made less academic progress on the federal tests than any city other than Cleveland.

She lacerated the administration for its indifference to class size, now at its highest point in 14 years.

And she shocked her Bronx audience by explaining that the city was releasing confidential student data without parental consent to inBloom, to be mined by vendors.

Haimson is the leader of Class Size Matters and a co-founder of Parents Across America. She is also a director of the Network for Public Education.

Anthony Cody describes the campaign to put mayors in charge of school districts and the reasons behind it.

The biggest supporter of mayoral control is Arne Duncan. When mayoral control was up for renewal in Néw York City, he weighed in to support it. He lobbied against any effort to give the mayor’s appointees set terms; he insisted they should serve at the pleasure of the mayor to give his absolute authority over every decision.

That allowed the mayor to ignore protests against school closing and charters, both of which are priorities for Duncan.

Who else supports mayoral control? The Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation. The billionaires don’t like democracy.

Unfortunately, mayoral control hasn’t worked out so well for Néw York City, Chicago, and D.C., but why let evidence get in the way of a desire for total power?

The NYC public is tired of Mayor Bloomberg’s policies of testing, school closings, and privatization. But for 12 years he has had the constant support of the city’s three major newspapers.

The editorialists have supported and cheered him at every turn.

But WOW, today the Néw York Times has an editorial today that agrees that the critics have a point. Will wonders never cease?!

The other papers regularly insist that any dissent from the mayor’s policies–no matter how ruinous to students they may be–comes from the teachers union or from paid shills for the union. The tabloids are quite certain that parents don’t have brains or ideas of their own.

The irony is that the tabloids continue to lambaste the quality of the schools despite the fact that Mayor Bloomberg has had total control of them for 11 years. If children don’t pass tests, the mayor is accountable. How do citizens hold our billionaire mayor accountable? As he once memorably said, you can always boo him at parades.

Here is an excerpt from the Times’ startling editorial:

“But after 12 years, this mayor’s ideas are due for a counterargument. The critiques the candidates are offering hardly shock the conscience, and their complaints about the Bloomberg administration can be heard from teachers and parents in any school in the city.

“The school system has indeed gone overboard in relying on standardized testing. Tests need to be a means to the end of better instruction, not the pedagogical obsession they have become. Yes, Mr. Bloomberg has shown disdain for consultation, as in his rush to close underperforming schools without the full and meaningful involvement of affected communities.

“The system needs to strengthen neighborhoods’ connection to schools and reconnect with parents who feel shut out. And while charter schools can be a path to excellence, they can also cause problems. Shoehorning them into existing school buildings over local objections can alienate parents and reinforce among students a harmful sense of being separate and unequal.”

Now this is an interesting idea that needs to be deconstructed. Mayor Bloomberg, reputedly worth $20 Billion, suggests that some young people should skip college and be a plumber.

On one hand, that’s good advice for young people who are not interested in going to college. Many, even some who should go to college, can’t afford to go because the cost is so prohibitive. In recent years, the states have shifted the costs to students and made college unaffordable for students unless they are willing to take on heavy debt.

On the other hand, if Mayor Bloomberg really believes this, he should not have gutted so many of Néw York City’s fine vocational programs.

If the mayor is serious, he might look into the German apprenticeship system, which seems to work well. Germany has taken care not to outsource its manufacturing base (as our corporations did), and it has far fewer college graduates than we do.